FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Thoughts on Borris johnson
Thoughts on Borris johnson
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hes a massive corrupt kaant who plays silly but is really on the ball fleecing our cash" Can't believe our tax is paying his legal aid, even though he's minted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Though this should probably be in the politics section "He's not a politician now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Though this should probably be in the politics section
He's not a politician now "Boom. Yes!!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's spelt Boris mind! Like that spider called Boris lol " Haha my bad | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's spelt Boris mind! Like that spider called Boris lol Haha my bad " hehe prefer Boris the spider over that wet wipe  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Despise him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? " If I list my opinion I’m likely to get banned from the forums | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? If I list my opinion I’m likely to get banned from the forums "Is it really bad hahahaha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it’s all comical that everyone’s getting so upset by all this nonsense... He is no different to all mps" Yeah it’s hard to understand why so many people who lost loved ones during lockdown would be upset over this nonsense about Boris and his chums lying to the country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Complete and utter wanker! A liar, a corrupt arsehole. Thinks he’s above everything and couldn’t possibly be caught lying and held to account as he’s sooooo important - so it’s obviously a witch hunt
Despise him "He deserves a ONE way seat to Rwanda! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He needs a better hair dresser "I actually liked his dad on celeb get me out of here tho | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lying fucker just like the majority of politicians " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? " Boris the buffoon, a complete and utter fuckwit, always knew it from first impressions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm a big fan of Johnson. When and where he eats cake and who with is really of no interest to me. It's indicative of the total trivialisation of our politics. Nobody died, unlike with Blair's lies. Good luck to Boris with his new ventures. I'm sure his new Mail column is the first of many avenues that will open to him, but I will definitely be reading it with interest." Hmmm that’s actually quite offensive to all the people who lost loved ones during Covid! 1. The main issue is Johnson lied repeatedly to Parliament and to Parliamentary Committees. If he could lie about parties what else could he lie about? 2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! 3. It demonstrated one rule for “them” and another rule for “us”. Totally contemptuous! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm a big fan of Johnson. When and where he eats cake and who with is really of no interest to me. It's indicative of the total trivialisation of our politics. Nobody died, unlike with Blair's lies. Good luck to Boris with his new ventures. I'm sure his new Mail column is the first of many avenues that will open to him, but I will definitely be reading it with interest." Stockholm syndrome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not into politics much never have been really but the last time I listened to that man speak he seems to have a problem with explaining himself clearly and efficiently which is the worst to do as a politician Also my God why does he never brush or comb his hair it would compliment his suits a lot better plus if he presented himself better people may have the patience to hear him out, maybe xx" his hairdresser was named in his honours list I kid you not  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm a big fan of Johnson. When and where he eats cake and who with is really of no interest to me. It's indicative of the total trivialisation of our politics. Nobody died, unlike with Blair's lies. Good luck to Boris with his new ventures. I'm sure his new Mail column is the first of many avenues that will open to him, but I will definitely be reading it with interest." UNLOS | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? " One of the greatest politicians of modern times His track record is self explanatory and a reflection of what ordinary people think. Winning an 80 seat majority was a stunning success and put the narrow minded bigoted elite in their place. This was followed by a world leading Covid vaccination programme , life returned to normal, many lives were saved and people saved from financial ruin by a generous support scheme . Ukraine think the world of him. He provided loads of support and took the lead . Put simply he is one of the greatest politicians of modern times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? One of the greatest politicians of modern times His track record is self explanatory and a reflection of what ordinary people think. Winning an 80 seat majority was a stunning success and put the narrow minded bigoted elite in their place. This was followed by a world leading Covid vaccination programme , life returned to normal, many lives were saved and people saved from financial ruin by a generous support scheme . Ukraine think the world of him. He provided loads of support and took the lead . Put simply he is one of the greatest politicians of modern times. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? One of the greatest politicians of modern times His track record is self explanatory and a reflection of what ordinary people think. Winning an 80 seat majority was a stunning success and put the narrow minded bigoted elite in their place. This was followed by a world leading Covid vaccination programme , life returned to normal, many lives were saved and people saved from financial ruin by a generous support scheme . Ukraine think the world of him. He provided loads of support and took the lead . Put simply he is one of the greatest politicians of modern times. " Oh Pat that really is some Top Tory Trolling | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? One of the greatest politicians of modern times His track record is self explanatory and a reflection of what ordinary people think. Winning an 80 seat majority was a stunning success and put the narrow minded bigoted elite in their place. This was followed by a world leading Covid vaccination programme , life returned to normal, many lives were saved and people saved from financial ruin by a generous support scheme . Ukraine think the world of him. He provided loads of support and took the lead . Put simply he is one of the greatest politicians of modern times. Oh Pat that really is some Top Tory Trolling "I'm glad Pats back. Magnus appears to be gone though  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm a big fan of Johnson. When and where he eats cake and who with is really of no interest to me. It's indicative of the total trivialisation of our politics. Nobody died, unlike with Blair's lies. Good luck to Boris with his new ventures. I'm sure his new Mail column is the first of many avenues that will open to him, but I will definitely be reading it with interest. UNLOS "I guess he didn’t have the strength of his convictions? Either that or he is trying to mimic his hero and run away every time things get a little difficult! Anyone checked their fridge? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm a big fan of Johnson. When and where he eats cake and who with is really of no interest to me. It's indicative of the total trivialisation of our politics. Nobody died, unlike with Blair's lies. Good luck to Boris with his new ventures. I'm sure his new Mail column is the first of many avenues that will open to him, but I will definitely be reading it with interest. Hmmm that’s actually quite offensive to all the people who lost loved ones during Covid! 1. The main issue is Johnson lied repeatedly to Parliament and to Parliamentary Committees. If he could lie about parties what else could he lie about? 2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! 3. It demonstrated one rule for “them” and another rule for “us”. Totally contemptuous! " . The reality is that Boris was working extremely hard to fight Covvid and put in place a world leading vaccination programme. Most people apart from the woke loving liberal elite really appreciated his hard work. Kier Starmer and Angela Raynor also ignored lockdown rules. If we were to punish everyone who broke lockdown rules the whole country would be receiving fines . Bizarre that people are not bothered about lockdown rules being broken unless it is Boris Johnson . Boris saved many lives and without him people would have faced financial ruin . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm a big fan of Johnson. When and where he eats cake and who with is really of no interest to me. It's indicative of the total trivialisation of our politics. Nobody died, unlike with Blair's lies. Good luck to Boris with his new ventures. I'm sure his new Mail column is the first of many avenues that will open to him, but I will definitely be reading it with interest. UNLOS
I guess he didn’t have the strength of his convictions? Either that or he is trying to mimic his hero and run away every time things get a little difficult! Anyone checked their fridge?"Tbh, the poor bloke was obviously a very confused and angry person. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm a big fan of Johnson. When and where he eats cake and who with is really of no interest to me. It's indicative of the total trivialisation of our politics. Nobody died, unlike with Blair's lies. Good luck to Boris with his new ventures. I'm sure his new Mail column is the first of many avenues that will open to him, but I will definitely be reading it with interest. Hmmm that’s actually quite offensive to all the people who lost loved ones during Covid! 1. The main issue is Johnson lied repeatedly to Parliament and to Parliamentary Committees. If he could lie about parties what else could he lie about? 2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! 3. It demonstrated one rule for “them” and another rule for “us”. Totally contemptuous! . The reality is that Boris was working extremely hard to fight Covvid and put in place a world leading vaccination programme. Most people apart from the woke loving liberal elite really appreciated his hard work. Kier Starmer and Angela Raynor also ignored lockdown rules. If we were to punish everyone who broke lockdown rules the whole country would be receiving fines . Bizarre that people are not bothered about lockdown rules being broken unless it is Boris Johnson . Boris saved many lives and without him people would have faced financial ruin . " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not into politics much never have been really but the last time I listened to that man speak he seems to have a problem with explaining himself clearly and efficiently which is the worst to do as a politician Also my God why does he never brush or comb his hair it would compliment his suits a lot better plus if he presented himself better people may have the patience to hear him out, maybe xx his hairdresser was named in his honours list I kid you not "Well deserved, that is a an unruly thing to manage and his hair is bit tough too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm a big fan of Johnson. When and where he eats cake and who with is really of no interest to me. It's indicative of the total trivialisation of our politics. Nobody died, unlike with Blair's lies. Good luck to Boris with his new ventures. I'm sure his new Mail column is the first of many avenues that will open to him, but I will definitely be reading it with interest. Hmmm that’s actually quite offensive to all the people who lost loved ones during Covid! 1. The main issue is Johnson lied repeatedly to Parliament and to Parliamentary Committees. If he could lie about parties what else could he lie about? 2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! 3. It demonstrated one rule for “them” and another rule for “us”. Totally contemptuous! . The reality is that Boris was working extremely hard to fight Covvid and put in place a world leading vaccination programme. Most people apart from the woke loving liberal elite really appreciated his hard work. Kier Starmer and Angela Raynor also ignored lockdown rules. If we were to punish everyone who broke lockdown rules the whole country would be receiving fines . Bizarre that people are not bothered about lockdown rules being broken unless it is Boris Johnson . Boris saved many lives and without him people would have faced financial ruin . " No! While I know you are Tory Trolling, Pat there is a fine mine between scathing satire and causing outright offence. It was not about the parties in and of themselves. Plenty of people were working very hard under extreme circumstances to keep us safe. The Govt set the rules and needed to lead by example. Nobody is above the law especially those who determine the law/rules. I will reiterate why it matters... 1. The main issue is Johnson lied repeatedly to Parliament and to Parliamentary Committees. If he could lie about parties what else could he lie about? 2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! 3. It demonstrated one rule for “them” and another rule for “us”. Totally contemptuous! . The reality is that Boris was working extremely hard to fight Covvid and put in place a world leading vaccination programme. Most people apart from the woke loving liberal elite really appreciated his hard work. There are no excuses for Johnson’s behaviour. Yet again he has been exposed as a liar. Good riddance! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake!" I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown?" Nah if I was prime minister, I would always do the opposite of what I told the country to do. Never lead by example would be my motto... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm a big fan of Johnson. When and where he eats cake and who with is really of no interest to me. It's indicative of the total trivialisation of our politics. Nobody died, unlike with Blair's lies. Good luck to Boris with his new ventures. I'm sure his new Mail column is the first of many avenues that will open to him, but I will definitely be reading it with interest. Hmmm that’s actually quite offensive to all the people who lost loved ones during Covid! 1. The main issue is Johnson lied repeatedly to Parliament and to Parliamentary Committees. If he could lie about parties what else could he lie about? 2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! 3. It demonstrated one rule for “them” and another rule for “us”. Totally contemptuous! . The reality is that Boris was working extremely hard to fight Covvid and put in place a world leading vaccination programme. Most people apart from the woke loving liberal elite really appreciated his hard work. Kier Starmer and Angela Raynor also ignored lockdown rules. If we were to punish everyone who broke lockdown rules the whole country would be receiving fines . Bizarre that people are not bothered about lockdown rules being broken unless it is Boris Johnson . Boris saved many lives and without him people would have faced financial ruin . No! While I know you are Tory Trolling, Pat there is a fine mine between scathing satire and causing outright offence. It was not about the parties in and of themselves. Plenty of people were working very hard under extreme circumstances to keep us safe. The Govt set the rules and needed to lead by example. Nobody is above the law especially those who determine the law/rules. I will reiterate why it matters... 1. The main issue is Johnson lied repeatedly to Parliament and to Parliamentary Committees. If he could lie about parties what else could he lie about? 2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! 3. It demonstrated one rule for “them” and another rule for “us”. Totally contemptuous! . The reality is that Boris was working extremely hard to fight Covvid and put in place a world leading vaccination programme. Most people apart from the woke loving liberal elite really appreciated his hard work. There are no excuses for Johnson’s behaviour. Yet again he has been exposed as a liar. Good riddance!" However there is little evidence that he lied. He was simply doing his best to lead the country through very difficult circumstances and keep up the morale of his team . Most rational people would judge themselves on how they treated their loved ones during their life when they were alive , not whether they were able to attend a funeral. The government were working extremely hard to save lives | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm a big fan of Johnson. When and where he eats cake and who with is really of no interest to me. It's indicative of the total trivialisation of our politics. Nobody died, unlike with Blair's lies. Good luck to Boris with his new ventures. I'm sure his new Mail column is the first of many avenues that will open to him, but I will definitely be reading it with interest. Hmmm that’s actually quite offensive to all the people who lost loved ones during Covid! 1. The main issue is Johnson lied repeatedly to Parliament and to Parliamentary Committees. If he could lie about parties what else could he lie about? 2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! 3. It demonstrated one rule for “them” and another rule for “us”. Totally contemptuous! . The reality is that Boris was working extremely hard to fight Covvid and put in place a world leading vaccination programme. Most people apart from the woke loving liberal elite really appreciated his hard work. Kier Starmer and Angela Raynor also ignored lockdown rules. If we were to punish everyone who broke lockdown rules the whole country would be receiving fines . Bizarre that people are not bothered about lockdown rules being broken unless it is Boris Johnson . Boris saved many lives and without him people would have faced financial ruin . No! While I know you are Tory Trolling, Pat there is a fine mine between scathing satire and causing outright offence. It was not about the parties in and of themselves. Plenty of people were working very hard under extreme circumstances to keep us safe. The Govt set the rules and needed to lead by example. Nobody is above the law especially those who determine the law/rules. I will reiterate why it matters... 1. The main issue is Johnson lied repeatedly to Parliament and to Parliamentary Committees. If he could lie about parties what else could he lie about? 2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! 3. It demonstrated one rule for “them” and another rule for “us”. Totally contemptuous! . The reality is that Boris was working extremely hard to fight Covvid and put in place a world leading vaccination programme. Most people apart from the woke loving liberal elite really appreciated his hard work. There are no excuses for Johnson’s behaviour. Yet again he has been exposed as a liar. Good riddance! However there is little evidence that he lied. He was simply doing his best to lead the country through very difficult circumstances and keep up the morale of his team . Most rational people would judge themselves on how they treated their loved ones during their life when they were alive , not whether they were able to attend a funeral. The government were working extremely hard to save lives " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown?" It just a shame the jobsworth police, didn't treat the lockdown indiscretions of the public. With the same kind of nothing to see here attitude they took with the politicians. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown?" We’re you the PM Did you make the rules Did you lie to parliament | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown?" The fact Boris laughed (or ate cake) is not why he was found to have deliberately mislead parliament. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The reality is that Boris was working extremely hard to fight Covvid and put in place a world leading vaccination programme. Most people apart from the woke loving liberal elite really appreciated his hard work. Kier Starmer and Angela Raynor also ignored lockdown rules. If we were to punish everyone who broke lockdown rules the whole country would be receiving fines . Bizarre that people are not bothered about lockdown rules being broken unless it is Boris Johnson . Boris saved many lives and without him people would have faced financial ruin . " Thanks for educating everyone Pat. Am sure most of us stupidly thought that all that money to pay the lockdown payouts and the PPE contracts came from taxpayers contributions or government borrowing that will be payed for by future taxpayers contributions. While all the while Bojo was paying everyone from his own money. God you learn something new on Fab everyday... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The reality is that Boris was working extremely hard to fight Covvid and put in place a world leading vaccination programme. Most people apart from the woke loving liberal elite really appreciated his hard work. Kier Starmer and Angela Raynor also ignored lockdown rules. If we were to punish everyone who broke lockdown rules the whole country would be receiving fines . Bizarre that people are not bothered about lockdown rules being broken unless it is Boris Johnson . Boris saved many lives and without him people would have faced financial ruin . Thanks for educating everyone Pat. Am sure most of us stupidly thought that all that money to pay the lockdown payouts and the PPE contracts came from taxpayers contributions or government borrowing that will be payed for by future taxpayers contributions. While all the while Bojo was paying everyone from his own money. God you learn something new on Fab everyday... "does he have his own money ? I'd have guessed he took about a loan  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? The fact Boris laughed (or ate cake) is not why he was found to have deliberately mislead parliament. " Despite all his faults , Boris is a master at fooling the foolish | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? The fact Boris laughed (or ate cake) is not why he was found to have deliberately mislead parliament. Despite all his faults , Boris is a master at fooling the foolish " .A bit insulting describing the electorate as foolish. Maybe the electorate and those who voted for Boris are real people who go out to work every day of the week , discuss their ideas with others , draw conclusions and live in the real world . A site such as this and a forum with less than 30 posters is hardly an example of what happens in the real world . It is a skewed distribution. The 2019 election result was a true reflection of reality and what happens in the real world . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? The fact Boris laughed (or ate cake) is not why he was found to have deliberately mislead parliament. Despite all his faults , Boris is a master at fooling the foolish .A bit insulting describing the electorate as foolish. Maybe the electorate and those who voted for Boris are real people who go out to work every day of the week , discuss their ideas with others , draw conclusions and live in the real world . A site such as this and a forum with less than 30 posters is hardly an example of what happens in the real world . It is a skewed distribution. The 2019 election result was a true reflection of reality and what happens in the real world . " That was 4 years ago, since then he has been sacked as PM and sacked as an MP. Those that were initially fooled have seen the light, those that continue to support him are still being fooled, politically he is finished. Tbh, I feel a bit sorry for him, he is obviously unwell and an alcoholic, poor bloke | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake!" "I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown?" "We’re you the PM" No. "Did you make the rules" No. "Did you lie to parliament" No. Are those questions relevant? No. The thing being discussed is that some people feel that Boris should be condemned for laughing with his friends while people were dying. We all did that. Every single one of us had some sort of fun during lockdown, while people were dying. Why do some people think that Boris uniquely should not have been allowed to do so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? The fact Boris laughed (or ate cake) is not why he was found to have deliberately mislead parliament. Despite all his faults , Boris is a master at fooling the foolish .A bit insulting describing the electorate as foolish. Maybe the electorate and those who voted for Boris are real people who go out to work every day of the week , discuss their ideas with others , draw conclusions and live in the real world . A site such as this and a forum with less than 30 posters is hardly an example of what happens in the real world . It is a skewed distribution. The 2019 election result was a true reflection of reality and what happens in the real world . That was 4 years ago, since then he has been sacked as PM and sacked as an MP. Those that were initially fooled have seen the light, those that continue to support him are still being fooled, politically he is finished. Tbh, I feel a bit sorry for him, he is obviously unwell and an alcoholic, poor bloke ". Maybe you need to review the source of your information . Last time I checked he resigned as PM and subsequently also resigned as an MP. He is now a Daily Mail columnist so many people will continue to benefit from his talent . Since resigning his earnings have rocketed. Probably a true measure of his success. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake!" "I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown?" "The fact Boris laughed (or ate cake) is not why he was found to have deliberately mislead parliament." I'm not sure how that relates to what I am saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? The fact Boris laughed (or ate cake) is not why he was found to have deliberately mislead parliament. Despite all his faults , Boris is a master at fooling the foolish .A bit insulting describing the electorate as foolish. Maybe the electorate and those who voted for Boris are real people who go out to work every day of the week , discuss their ideas with others , draw conclusions and live in the real world . A site such as this and a forum with less than 30 posters is hardly an example of what happens in the real world . It is a skewed distribution. The 2019 election result was a true reflection of reality and what happens in the real world . That was 4 years ago, since then he has been sacked as PM and sacked as an MP. Those that were initially fooled have seen the light, those that continue to support him are still being fooled, politically he is finished. Tbh, I feel a bit sorry for him, he is obviously unwell and an alcoholic, poor bloke . Maybe you need to review the source of your information . Last time I checked he resigned as PM and subsequently also resigned as an MP. He is now a Daily Mail columnist so many people will continue to benefit from his talent .
Since resigning his earnings have rocketed. Probably a true measure of his success. "I know you are a Tory but do you measure a persons ‘worth’ by how much they earn? If that’s the case then Tony Blair has ten times the net worth of Alexander . He didn’t want to leave as PM He didn’t want to leave as an MP Politically he is finished, and he has found his level writing for the DM He is obviously unwell and an alcoholic, I hope he gets help | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? The fact Boris laughed (or ate cake) is not why he was found to have deliberately mislead parliament. I'm not sure how that relates to what I am saying." You are trivialising the salient point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake!" "I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown?" "The fact Boris laughed (or ate cake) is not why he was found to have deliberately mislead parliament." "I'm not sure how that relates to what I am saying." "You are trivialising the salient point." The poster I quoted was making 3 points, and this was the second of them. If any trivialising was done, it was by them, not me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown?" FFS Are you absolutely serious? This takes pedantry to a new level. Ok take the word “laugh” out. Was it against the rules to have gatherings at that time? Did this prevent people from spending some last precious moments with lovef ones? Who set those rules? Who broke them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'm a big fan of Johnson. When and where he eats cake and who with is really of no interest to me. It's indicative of the total trivialisation of our politics. Nobody died, unlike with Blair's lies. Good luck to Boris with his new ventures. I'm sure his new Mail column is the first of many avenues that will open to him, but I will definitely be reading it with interest. Hmmm that’s actually quite offensive to all the people who lost loved ones during Covid! 1. The main issue is Johnson lied repeatedly to Parliament and to Parliamentary Committees. If he could lie about parties what else could he lie about? 2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! 3. It demonstrated one rule for “them” and another rule for “us”. Totally contemptuous! . The reality is that Boris was working extremely hard to fight Covvid and put in place a world leading vaccination programme. Most people apart from the woke loving liberal elite really appreciated his hard work. Kier Starmer and Angela Raynor also ignored lockdown rules. If we were to punish everyone who broke lockdown rules the whole country would be receiving fines . Bizarre that people are not bothered about lockdown rules being broken unless it is Boris Johnson . Boris saved many lives and without him people would have faced financial ruin . No! While I know you are Tory Trolling, Pat there is a fine mine between scathing satire and causing outright offence. It was not about the parties in and of themselves. Plenty of people were working very hard under extreme circumstances to keep us safe. The Govt set the rules and needed to lead by example. Nobody is above the law especially those who determine the law/rules. I will reiterate why it matters... 1. The main issue is Johnson lied repeatedly to Parliament and to Parliamentary Committees. If he could lie about parties what else could he lie about? 2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! 3. It demonstrated one rule for “them” and another rule for “us”. Totally contemptuous! . The reality is that Boris was working extremely hard to fight Covvid and put in place a world leading vaccination programme. Most people apart from the woke loving liberal elite really appreciated his hard work. There are no excuses for Johnson’s behaviour. Yet again he has been exposed as a liar. Good riddance! However there is little evidence that he lied. He was simply doing his best to lead the country through very difficult circumstances and keep up the morale of his team . Most rational people would judge themselves on how they treated their loved ones during their life when they were alive , not whether they were able to attend a funeral. The government were working extremely hard to save lives " You are getting so good at this trolling Pat. You are making it an art form! No evidence ha ha ha ha ha ha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? We’re you the PM No. Did you make the rules No. Did you lie to parliament No. Are those questions relevant? No. The thing being discussed is that some people feel that Boris should be condemned for laughing with his friends while people were dying. We all did that. Every single one of us had some sort of fun during lockdown, while people were dying. Why do some people think that Boris uniquely should not have been allowed to do so?" You are being deliberately obtuse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? The fact Boris laughed (or ate cake) is not why he was found to have deliberately mislead parliament. Despite all his faults , Boris is a master at fooling the foolish .A bit insulting describing the electorate as foolish. Maybe the electorate and those who voted for Boris are real people who go out to work every day of the week , discuss their ideas with others , draw conclusions and live in the real world . A site such as this and a forum with less than 30 posters is hardly an example of what happens in the real world . It is a skewed distribution. The 2019 election result was a true reflection of reality and what happens in the real world . That was 4 years ago, since then he has been sacked as PM and sacked as an MP. Those that were initially fooled have seen the light, those that continue to support him are still being fooled, politically he is finished. Tbh, I feel a bit sorry for him, he is obviously unwell and an alcoholic, poor bloke . Maybe you need to review the source of your information . Last time I checked he resigned as PM and subsequently also resigned as an MP. He is now a Daily Mail columnist so many people will continue to benefit from his talent .
Since resigning his earnings have rocketed. Probably a true measure of his success. "A proven liar has found his perfect gig worimg for a newspaper considered so inaccurate with the truth that even Wikipedia does not accept them as a source! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? One of the greatest politicians of modern times His track record is self explanatory and a reflection of what ordinary people think. Winning an 80 seat majority was a stunning success and put the narrow minded bigoted elite in their place. This was followed by a world leading Covid vaccination programme , life returned to normal, many lives were saved and people saved from financial ruin by a generous support scheme . Ukraine think the world of him. He provided loads of support and took the lead . Put simply he is one of the greatest politicians of modern times. " Absolutely savage take down of Boris fans. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? The fact Boris laughed (or ate cake) is not why he was found to have deliberately mislead parliament. I'm not sure how that relates to what I am saying. You are trivialising the salient point. The poster I quoted was making 3 points, and this was the second of them. If any trivialising was done, it was by them, not me." You are on very poor form today! I wasn’t trivialising. I was clearly juxtaposing the very serious heartbreaking situation 000s found themselves in and the way the leader of the country who should have been leading by example was actually behaving. Despicable “do as I say not as I do you plebs” behaviour. Totally reprehensible. Then he lied about it. Repeatedly. To Parliament and Parliamentary committees. What a great PM! What a great person! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? The fact Boris laughed (or ate cake) is not why he was found to have deliberately mislead parliament. Despite all his faults , Boris is a master at fooling the foolish .A bit insulting describing the electorate as foolish. Maybe the electorate and those who voted for Boris are real people who go out to work every day of the week , discuss their ideas with others , draw conclusions and live in the real world . A site such as this and a forum with less than 30 posters is hardly an example of what happens in the real world . It is a skewed distribution. The 2019 election result was a true reflection of reality and what happens in the real world . That was 4 years ago, since then he has been sacked as PM and sacked as an MP. Those that were initially fooled have seen the light, those that continue to support him are still being fooled, politically he is finished. Tbh, I feel a bit sorry for him, he is obviously unwell and an alcoholic, poor bloke . Maybe you need to review the source of your information . Last time I checked he resigned as PM and subsequently also resigned as an MP. He is now a Daily Mail columnist so many people will continue to benefit from his talent .
Since resigning his earnings have rocketed. Probably a true measure of his success. "Savage again. No holding back. Will any Boris fans have any come back to this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? FFS Are you absolutely serious? This takes pedantry to a new level. Ok take the word “laugh” out. Was it against the rules to have gatherings at that time? Did this prevent people from spending some last precious moments with lovef ones? Who set those rules? Who broke them?" . Most people just wanted Covid bought under control . Just as well the government managed to implement an award winning vaccination programme. Anyone who care about their relatives would be concerned with what help they gave them during their lifetime, not when they were dead. In any event it appears that lockdown only saved one thousand lives and many more were lost due to delayed detection of other diseases . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? FFS Are you absolutely serious? This takes pedantry to a new level. Ok take the word “laugh” out. Was it against the rules to have gatherings at that time? Did this prevent people from spending some last precious moments with lovef ones? Who set those rules? Who broke them?. Most people just wanted Covid bought under control . Just as well the government managed to implement an award winning vaccination programme. Anyone who care about their relatives would be concerned with what help they gave them during their lifetime, not when they were dead. In any event it appears that lockdown only saved one thousand lives and many more were lost due to delayed detection of other diseases . " Alexander in-forced the lockdowns | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? FFS Are you absolutely serious? This takes pedantry to a new level. Ok take the word “laugh” out. Was it against the rules to have gatherings at that time? Did this prevent people from spending some last precious moments with lovef ones? Who set those rules? Who broke them?. Most people just wanted Covid bought under control . Just as well the government managed to implement an award winning vaccination programme. Anyone who care about their relatives would be concerned with what help they gave them during their lifetime, not when they were dead. In any event it appears that lockdown only saved one thousand lives and many more were lost due to delayed detection of other diseases . " What award did the government win for the vaccination programme? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? One of the greatest politicians of modern times His track record is self explanatory and a reflection of what ordinary people think. Winning an 80 seat majority was a stunning success and put the narrow minded bigoted elite in their place. This was followed by a world leading Covid vaccination programme , life returned to normal, many lives were saved and people saved from financial ruin by a generous support scheme . Ukraine think the world of him. He provided loads of support and took the lead . Put simply he is one of the greatest politicians of modern times. " He’s one of the narrow minded bigoted elite. A liar as a journalist. A liar as Mayor. A liar as an MP. A lot as a cabinet minister. A liar as PM. He flicked two fingers up at the nation during Covid, and appears to have plenty more skeletons in his closet (witness the young lady just been given a life peerage for no reason whatsoever). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake!" "I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown?" "FFS Are you absolutely serious? This takes pedantry to a new level. Ok take the word “laugh” out. Was it against the rules to have gatherings at that time? Did this prevent people from spending some last precious moments with lovef ones? Who set those rules? Who broke them?" So if I understand you correctly, you are trying to say that Boris was in charge of setting the rules, and then he broke them, and that's what you feel he should be commended for. Why didn't you just say that? The words you use make it sound like he deliberately banned people from visiting their loved ones, and then laughed at all the proles following the rules. I find these 'appeal to emotion' posts very confusing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? Boris the buffoon, a complete and utter fuckwit, always knew it from first impressions." Likewise, I had him sussed from the word go and was not wrong in my assessment of him. Knew how to play the personality card and still does. Watch him like a hawk. His work is probably far from finished. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? One of the greatest politicians of modern times His track record is self explanatory and a reflection of what ordinary people think. Winning an 80 seat majority was a stunning success and put the narrow minded bigoted elite in their place. This was followed by a world leading Covid vaccination programme , life returned to normal, many lives were saved and people saved from financial ruin by a generous support scheme . Ukraine think the world of him. He provided loads of support and took the lead . Put simply he is one of the greatest politicians of modern times. He’s one of the narrow minded bigoted elite. A liar as a journalist. A liar as Mayor. A liar as an MP. A lot as a cabinet minister. A liar as PM. He flicked two fingers up at the nation during Covid, and appears to have plenty more skeletons in his closet (witness the young lady just been given a life peerage for no reason whatsoever). " . It looks like the electorate disagrees with you. . An 80 seat majority is probably a true reflection of what people think of him . The electorate are a much more representative sample of society than a dozen posters on a swingers site . It looks like the Daily Mail also recognise his talent. He is now a journalist for them . Maybe you should assess how you value human life . Boris Johnson was the driving force behind an award winning Covid 19 vaccination programme. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? One of the greatest politicians of modern times His track record is self explanatory and a reflection of what ordinary people think. Winning an 80 seat majority was a stunning success and put the narrow minded bigoted elite in their place. This was followed by a world leading Covid vaccination programme , life returned to normal, many lives were saved and people saved from financial ruin by a generous support scheme . Ukraine think the world of him. He provided loads of support and took the lead . Put simply he is one of the greatest politicians of modern times. He’s one of the narrow minded bigoted elite. A liar as a journalist. A liar as Mayor. A liar as an MP. A lot as a cabinet minister. A liar as PM. He flicked two fingers up at the nation during Covid, and appears to have plenty more skeletons in his closet (witness the young lady just been given a life peerage for no reason whatsoever). . It looks like the electorate disagrees with you. . An 80 seat majority is probably a true reflection of what people think of him . The electorate are a much more representative sample of society than a dozen posters on a swingers site . It looks like the Daily Mail also recognise his talent. He is now a journalist for them . Maybe you should assess how you value human life . Boris Johnson was the driving force behind an award winning Covid 19 vaccination programme. " The primary reason for the tories 2019 election win was polled as ‘Jeremy Corbyn’, incidentally. Why was Johnson’s approval rating so low, If the public are such huge fans? And Johnson’s Covid performance cost lives. Many lives. Late to lockdown, early to reopen. A tragic shambles | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? FFS Are you absolutely serious? This takes pedantry to a new level. Ok take the word “laugh” out. Was it against the rules to have gatherings at that time? Did this prevent people from spending some last precious moments with lovef ones? Who set those rules? Who broke them? So if I understand you correctly, you are trying to say that Boris was in charge of setting the rules, and then he broke them, and that's what you feel he should be commended for. Why didn't you just say that? The words you use make it sound like he deliberately banned people from visiting their loved ones, and then laughed at all the proles following the rules. I find these 'appeal to emotion' posts very confusing." I don’t think you mean “commended”? It was perfectly clear what I was saying and when it comes to the immense suffering some families encountered during the pandemic, I think it most certainly is an emotive subject. If you find that “confusing” then maybe you need to develop some empathy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? One of the greatest politicians of modern times His track record is self explanatory and a reflection of what ordinary people think. Winning an 80 seat majority was a stunning success and put the narrow minded bigoted elite in their place. This was followed by a world leading Covid vaccination programme , life returned to normal, many lives were saved and people saved from financial ruin by a generous support scheme . Ukraine think the world of him. He provided loads of support and took the lead . Put simply he is one of the greatest politicians of modern times. He’s one of the narrow minded bigoted elite. A liar as a journalist. A liar as Mayor. A liar as an MP. A lot as a cabinet minister. A liar as PM. He flicked two fingers up at the nation during Covid, and appears to have plenty more skeletons in his closet (witness the young lady just been given a life peerage for no reason whatsoever). . It looks like the electorate disagrees with you. . An 80 seat majority is probably a true reflection of what people think of him . The electorate are a much more representative sample of society than a dozen posters on a swingers site . It looks like the Daily Mail also recognise his talent. He is now a journalist for them . Maybe you should assess how you value human life . Boris Johnson was the driving force behind an award winning Covid 19 vaccination programme. " Come on Pat you need to answer people who ask questions..,what award did the covid 19 vaccination programme win? Also you do know that the Faily Heil are considered so untrustworthy and inaccurate as a source of news that even Wikipedia disallows them as a source or citation? Perfect home for a known proven multiple liar. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? One of the greatest politicians of modern times His track record is self explanatory and a reflection of what ordinary people think. Winning an 80 seat majority was a stunning success and put the narrow minded bigoted elite in their place. This was followed by a world leading Covid vaccination programme , life returned to normal, many lives were saved and people saved from financial ruin by a generous support scheme . Ukraine think the world of him. He provided loads of support and took the lead . Put simply he is one of the greatest politicians of modern times. He’s one of the narrow minded bigoted elite. A liar as a journalist. A liar as Mayor. A liar as an MP. A lot as a cabinet minister. A liar as PM. He flicked two fingers up at the nation during Covid, and appears to have plenty more skeletons in his closet (witness the young lady just been given a life peerage for no reason whatsoever). . It looks like the electorate disagrees with you. . An 80 seat majority is probably a true reflection of what people think of him . The electorate are a much more representative sample of society than a dozen posters on a swingers site . It looks like the Daily Mail also recognise his talent. He is now a journalist for them . Maybe you should assess how you value human life . Boris Johnson was the driving force behind an award winning Covid 19 vaccination programme. " What awards did the vaccine program win Alexander isn’t popular, he is despised by the vast majority of the public Good luck with his new job at the DM, he has found his level He is obviously unwell and an alcoholic , I Hope he gets the help he needs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? One of the greatest politicians of modern times His track record is self explanatory and a reflection of what ordinary people think. Winning an 80 seat majority was a stunning success and put the narrow minded bigoted elite in their place. This was followed by a world leading Covid vaccination programme , life returned to normal, many lives were saved and people saved from financial ruin by a generous support scheme . Ukraine think the world of him. He provided loads of support and took the lead . Put simply he is one of the greatest politicians of modern times. He’s one of the narrow minded bigoted elite. A liar as a journalist. A liar as Mayor. A liar as an MP. A lot as a cabinet minister. A liar as PM. He flicked two fingers up at the nation during Covid, and appears to have plenty more skeletons in his closet (witness the young lady just been given a life peerage for no reason whatsoever). . It looks like the electorate disagrees with you. . An 80 seat majority is probably a true reflection of what people think of him . The electorate are a much more representative sample of society than a dozen posters on a swingers site . It looks like the Daily Mail also recognise his talent. He is now a journalist for them . Maybe you should assess how you value human life . Boris Johnson was the driving force behind an award winning Covid 19 vaccination programme. What awards did the vaccine program win Alexander isn’t popular, he is despised by the vast majority of the public Good luck with his new job at the DM, he has found his level He is obviously unwell and an alcoholic , I Hope he gets the help he needs "Why do you continue calling him Alexander when his preferred name and the name all use is Boris? Why are you saying he is unwell and a alcoholic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? One of the greatest politicians of modern times His track record is self explanatory and a reflection of what ordinary people think. Winning an 80 seat majority was a stunning success and put the narrow minded bigoted elite in their place. This was followed by a world leading Covid vaccination programme , life returned to normal, many lives were saved and people saved from financial ruin by a generous support scheme . Ukraine think the world of him. He provided loads of support and took the lead . Put simply he is one of the greatest politicians of modern times. He’s one of the narrow minded bigoted elite. A liar as a journalist. A liar as Mayor. A liar as an MP. A lot as a cabinet minister. A liar as PM. He flicked two fingers up at the nation during Covid, and appears to have plenty more skeletons in his closet (witness the young lady just been given a life peerage for no reason whatsoever). . It looks like the electorate disagrees with you. . An 80 seat majority is probably a true reflection of what people think of him . The electorate are a much more representative sample of society than a dozen posters on a swingers site . It looks like the Daily Mail also recognise his talent. He is now a journalist for them . Maybe you should assess how you value human life . Boris Johnson was the driving force behind an award winning Covid 19 vaccination programme. What awards did the vaccine program win Alexander isn’t popular, he is despised by the vast majority of the public Good luck with his new job at the DM, he has found his level He is obviously unwell and an alcoholic , I Hope he gets the help he needs
Why do you continue calling him Alexander when his preferred name and the name all use is Boris?
Why are you saying he is unwell and an alcoholic?"We don’t ball Blair ‘Tony’ or Brown ‘Gordon’. We don’t say ‘David’ or ‘Theresa’ He’s Johnson. He’s nobody’s mate, so why do we attempt to pretend he is by calling him his (pretend) name? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey everyone and welcome. What's your views about Borris? One of the greatest politicians of modern times His track record is self explanatory and a reflection of what ordinary people think. Winning an 80 seat majority was a stunning success and put the narrow minded bigoted elite in their place. This was followed by a world leading Covid vaccination programme , life returned to normal, many lives were saved and people saved from financial ruin by a generous support scheme . Ukraine think the world of him. He provided loads of support and took the lead . Put simply he is one of the greatest politicians of modern times. He’s one of the narrow minded bigoted elite. A liar as a journalist. A liar as Mayor. A liar as an MP. A lot as a cabinet minister. A liar as PM. He flicked two fingers up at the nation during Covid, and appears to have plenty more skeletons in his closet (witness the young lady just been given a life peerage for no reason whatsoever). . It looks like the electorate disagrees with you. . An 80 seat majority is probably a true reflection of what people think of him . The electorate are a much more representative sample of society than a dozen posters on a swingers site . It looks like the Daily Mail also recognise his talent. He is now a journalist for them . Maybe you should assess how you value human life . Boris Johnson was the driving force behind an award winning Covid 19 vaccination programme. What awards did the vaccine program win Alexander isn’t popular, he is despised by the vast majority of the public Good luck with his new job at the DM, he has found his level He is obviously unwell and an alcoholic , I Hope he gets the help he needs
Why do you continue calling him Alexander when his preferred name and the name all use is Boris?
Why are you saying he is unwell and a alcoholic?"I don’t know about unwell - but I have heard that he is a functioning alcoholic - or borderline such. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake!" "I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown?" "FFS Are you absolutely serious? This takes pedantry to a new level. Ok take the word “laugh” out. Was it against the rules to have gatherings at that time? Did this prevent people from spending some last precious moments with lovef ones? Who set those rules? Who broke them?" "So if I understand you correctly, you are trying to say that Boris was in charge of setting the rules, and then he broke them, and that's what you feel he should be commended for. Why didn't you just say that? The words you use make it sound like he deliberately banned people from visiting their loved ones, and then laughed at all the proles following the rules. I find these 'appeal to emotion' posts very confusing." "I don’t think you mean “commended”?" You're right, I meant 'condemned'. I should prooof-read more carefully. "It was perfectly clear what I was saying ..." It really wasn't. It might be clear to other people that think like you, but I don't, and the words you used made no sense to me at all. "If you find that “confusing” then maybe you need to develop some empathy?" You mean that I should change myself to be more like you? I'll pass thanks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? FFS Are you absolutely serious? This takes pedantry to a new level. Ok take the word “laugh” out. Was it against the rules to have gatherings at that time? Did this prevent people from spending some last precious moments with lovef ones? Who set those rules? Who broke them? So if I understand you correctly, you are trying to say that Boris was in charge of setting the rules, and then he broke them, and that's what you feel he should be commended for. Why didn't you just say that? The words you use make it sound like he deliberately banned people from visiting their loved ones, and then laughed at all the proles following the rules. I find these 'appeal to emotion' posts very confusing. I don’t think you mean “commended”? You're right, I meant 'condemned'. I should prooof-read more carefully. It was perfectly clear what I was saying ... It really wasn't. It might be clear to other people that think like you, but I don't, and the words you used made no sense to me at all. If you find that “confusing” then maybe you need to develop some empathy? You mean that I should change myself to be more like you? I'll pass thanks." So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? FFS Are you absolutely serious? This takes pedantry to a new level. Ok take the word “laugh” out. Was it against the rules to have gatherings at that time? Did this prevent people from spending some last precious moments with lovef ones? Who set those rules? Who broke them? So if I understand you correctly, you are trying to say that Boris was in charge of setting the rules, and then he broke them, and that's what you feel he should be commended for. Why didn't you just say that? The words you use make it sound like he deliberately banned people from visiting their loved ones, and then laughed at all the proles following the rules. I find these 'appeal to emotion' posts very confusing. I don’t think you mean “commended”? You're right, I meant 'condemned'. I should prooof-read more carefully. It was perfectly clear what I was saying ... It really wasn't. It might be clear to other people that think like you, but I don't, and the words you used made no sense to me at all. If you find that “confusing” then maybe you need to develop some empathy? You mean that I should change myself to be more like you? I'll pass thanks. So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you?" Johnson is a complete tool, but I don't really get people blaming him for Covid deaths. They happened because of some cock-up in a China lab. Once it was evident a global pandemic was coming, we were in unchartered waters. Johnson and his team did as well as any other country. Partying was insensitive, but the deaths would have happened anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? FFS Are you absolutely serious? This takes pedantry to a new level. Ok take the word “laugh” out. Was it against the rules to have gatherings at that time? Did this prevent people from spending some last precious moments with lovef ones? Who set those rules? Who broke them? So if I understand you correctly, you are trying to say that Boris was in charge of setting the rules, and then he broke them, and that's what you feel he should be commended for. Why didn't you just say that? The words you use make it sound like he deliberately banned people from visiting their loved ones, and then laughed at all the proles following the rules. I find these 'appeal to emotion' posts very confusing. I don’t think you mean “commended”? You're right, I meant 'condemned'. I should prooof-read more carefully. It was perfectly clear what I was saying ... It really wasn't. It might be clear to other people that think like you, but I don't, and the words you used made no sense to me at all. If you find that “confusing” then maybe you need to develop some empathy? You mean that I should change myself to be more like you? I'll pass thanks. So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? Johnson is a complete tool, but I don't really get people blaming him for Covid deaths. They happened because of some cock-up in a China lab. Once it was evident a global pandemic was coming, we were in unchartered waters. Johnson and his team did as well as any other country. Partying was insensitive, but the deaths would have happened anyway." Is that a general comment or aimed at me? I have not blamed Johnson for Covid deaths as that is not the focus of this discussion so far. I have blamed Johnson and his team of ignoring the rules they set, expected the rest of us to abide by, and was being enforced by the police. However, even more important is that he lied about it. Lied to Parliament. Lied to Parliamentary committees. And therefore lied to all of us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? FFS Are you absolutely serious? This takes pedantry to a new level. Ok take the word “laugh” out. Was it against the rules to have gatherings at that time? Did this prevent people from spending some last precious moments with lovef ones? Who set those rules? Who broke them? So if I understand you correctly, you are trying to say that Boris was in charge of setting the rules, and then he broke them, and that's what you feel he should be commended for. Why didn't you just say that? The words you use make it sound like he deliberately banned people from visiting their loved ones, and then laughed at all the proles following the rules. I find these 'appeal to emotion' posts very confusing. I don’t think you mean “commended”? You're right, I meant 'condemned'. I should prooof-read more carefully. It was perfectly clear what I was saying ... It really wasn't. It might be clear to other people that think like you, but I don't, and the words you used made no sense to me at all. If you find that “confusing” then maybe you need to develop some empathy? You mean that I should change myself to be more like you? I'll pass thanks. So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? Johnson is a complete tool, but I don't really get people blaming him for Covid deaths. They happened because of some cock-up in a China lab. Once it was evident a global pandemic was coming, we were in unchartered waters. Johnson and his team did as well as any other country. Partying was insensitive, but the deaths would have happened anyway." Not sure it's about blaming him for the deaths. It's about him and his cronies partying hard while friends and loved ones died alone in hospital. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? FFS Are you absolutely serious? This takes pedantry to a new level. Ok take the word “laugh” out. Was it against the rules to have gatherings at that time? Did this prevent people from spending some last precious moments with lovef ones? Who set those rules? Who broke them? So if I understand you correctly, you are trying to say that Boris was in charge of setting the rules, and then he broke them, and that's what you feel he should be commended for. Why didn't you just say that? The words you use make it sound like he deliberately banned people from visiting their loved ones, and then laughed at all the proles following the rules. I find these 'appeal to emotion' posts very confusing. I don’t think you mean “commended”? You're right, I meant 'condemned'. I should prooof-read more carefully. It was perfectly clear what I was saying ... It really wasn't. It might be clear to other people that think like you, but I don't, and the words you used made no sense to me at all. If you find that “confusing” then maybe you need to develop some empathy? You mean that I should change myself to be more like you? I'll pass thanks. So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? Johnson is a complete tool, but I don't really get people blaming him for Covid deaths. They happened because of some cock-up in a China lab. Once it was evident a global pandemic was coming, we were in unchartered waters. Johnson and his team did as well as any other country. Partying was insensitive, but the deaths would have happened anyway. Not sure it's about blaming him for the deaths. It's about him and his cronies partying hard while friends and loved ones died alone in hospital." Their has been a comment that he said apparently whilst people were dying before the actual lockdown he was more concerned about the economy and said just let them pile up dude should be in prison for abusing his role and lying in the house of commons contempt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. 000s of people were unable to visit or see or hug their dying loved ones and say goodbye while he laughed and scoffed cake! I keep hearing this line of thinking being used, and it completely baffles me. During lockdown, I laughed at some points, and I'm sure I had some cake. Does that make me as bad as Boris? Do we really expect our leaders to stay sombre through a national crisis, not ever laughing, not even in private? Should he have been eating gruel all the way through lockdown? FFS Are you absolutely serious? This takes pedantry to a new level. Ok take the word “laugh” out. Was it against the rules to have gatherings at that time? Did this prevent people from spending some last precious moments with lovef ones? Who set those rules? Who broke them? So if I understand you correctly, you are trying to say that Boris was in charge of setting the rules, and then he broke them, and that's what you feel he should be commended for. Why didn't you just say that? The words you use make it sound like he deliberately banned people from visiting their loved ones, and then laughed at all the proles following the rules. I find these 'appeal to emotion' posts very confusing. I don’t think you mean “commended”? You're right, I meant 'condemned'. I should prooof-read more carefully. It was perfectly clear what I was saying ... It really wasn't. It might be clear to other people that think like you, but I don't, and the words you used made no sense to me at all. If you find that “confusing” then maybe you need to develop some empathy? You mean that I should change myself to be more like you? I'll pass thanks. So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? Johnson is a complete tool, but I don't really get people blaming him for Covid deaths. They happened because of some cock-up in a China lab. Once it was evident a global pandemic was coming, we were in uncharted waters. Johnson and his team did as well as any other country. Partying was insensitive, but the deaths would have happened anyway." We were in uncharted waters - but we did fail to react when we saw how bad things were in Italy, for example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you?" If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time." I wonder if these people would say that theybwere following the rules 
I agree many ended up breaking the rules "in a limited way" to try and balance their own MH with the rules. I sulecy they did it while trying to remain in the spirit.
That a far cry from a party. Or parties. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time." Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why do you continue calling him Alexander when his preferred name and the name all use is Boris? Why are you saying he is unwell and an alcoholic? We don’t ball Blair ‘Tony’ or Brown ‘Gordon’. We don’t say ‘David’ or ‘Theresa’ He’s Johnson. He’s nobody’s mate, so why do we attempt to pretend he is by calling him his (pretend) name? " Getting himself almost universally referred to as 'Boris' is just one of the tricks he uses to foster camaraderie among his supporters. The surname will do fine. Just as it did for Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron... any of them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you?" "If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time." "Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them?" Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it." did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. " He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time." Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why do you continue calling him Alexander when his preferred name and the name all use is Boris? Why are you saying he is unwell and an alcoholic? We don’t ball Blair ‘Tony’ or Brown ‘Gordon’. We don’t say ‘David’ or ‘Theresa’ He’s Johnson. He’s nobody’s mate, so why do we attempt to pretend he is by calling him his (pretend) name? Getting himself almost universally referred to as 'Boris' is just one of the tricks he uses to foster camaraderie among his supporters. The surname will do fine. Just as it did for Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron... any of them." Are you happy to acknowledge others preferred pro nouns or how people like to be referred to? It is now common decency, is it not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it." Fair enough. Seems clear to me that people are angry because while they missed being with loved ones as they died alone. Because they were following the rules. The person who set the rules, was partying and ignoring the rules. The implication is that he thinks partying with his colleagues is more important. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy? ". It was probably only a small but highly vocal minority who were angry at Boris for allegedly breaking the lock down rules . Imagine spending your time investigating matters that many consider to be trivial. There is little evidence that he either lied to or mislead parliament. The Boris haters would love to think that he did . In many cases their opinion is an insult. They are using lockdown deaths in order to make a political point Those who worked through Covid were a lot more concerned with helping people , not using deaths to score a political point If you had helped famuily members throughout your life you would accept that in the circumstances it would not be possible to attend a funeral. Neither Kier Starner nor Angela Rayner were prosecuted for breaking lockdown rules . They were nor leading the country. Boris Johnson was spending all his time trying to save the country from disaster. What type of person spends their time investigating whether ot not a pm broke lockdown rules ?. Probably only a fully paid up member of the pious and self righteous brigade. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you?" "If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time." "Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them?" "Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it." "did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing." I worded it badly, I did mean that people were angry that the rules didn't allow them to see relatives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Old news When is Sunaks non dom mrs going to pay her tax " Akshata Murthy isn't a non-dom, she gave up that status over a year ago. And she has always paid all tax due, both in India under Indian rules, and here in the UK under UK rules. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry" I don't understand, no. It's not like Boris was able to break the rules with impunity, he got caught and fined. To me this is like someone saying "Boris got caught doing 80mph on the motorway, yet I'm not allowed to park on the double yellow lines when I visit my mum". Not only are the 2 things different rules, but Boris got caught and fined for his infringement. "I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave. And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us. If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy? " And here we go again, adding extra stuff on, that somehow "makes it worse". The only explanation that makes sense to me is that you just hate Boris Johnson, and are willing to blame him for every single bad thing that has happened in the last few years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy? "I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree. That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree. I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'."In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'."Well personally I think most did follow the rules. So there we are. Impossible to prove beyond personal experience and observation. Maybe I live in a more law abiding area? Were there minor infringements like going for two walks instead of one? Probably. Did most people have house or garden parties over the xmas period? No. Not in my experience or observation. And even if most did (they didn’t) it still doesn’t change the fact that the leader of the country, the person who signs off on all the rules and ensured the police had the authority to enforce those rules, broke them himself (more than once). But hey it looks like that doesn’t bother some people and they appear to think the hypocrisy is acceptable? Also cannot fathom why it the connection to his subsequent lying about it doesn’t make it even worse for some people? I guess I have a different moral compass? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are all self serving and care not a jot about the public. They have us too busy working none stop to do anything about it. The french seem to not take any shit we should be more like them" No they are not ALL self serving. There are decent MPs on all sides of the house. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces.
"I keep seeing this argument which just continues to miss the point by a country mile. It has already been said repeatedly in this thread. The issue is not the parties (plural and not a polite cheese & wine evening but full in boozy sessions, in one case with a DJ) it is that Johnson lied about it when caught. Continued to lie and doubled down on the lies. He lied to Parliament. He lied to Parliamentary Committees. So if he can lie about that what else can he lie about? Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. He’s gone. He ran away rather than face the prospect of an unprecedented 90 day suspension from Parliament. Clearly the actions of an innocent man. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
Well personally I think most did follow the rules. So there we are. Impossible to prove beyond personal experience and observation. Maybe I live in a more law abiding area?
Were there minor infringements like going for two walks instead of one? Probably. Did most people have house or garden parties over the xmas period? No. Not in my experience or observation.
And even if most did (they didn’t) it still doesn’t change the fact that the leader of the country, the person who signs off on all the rules and ensured the police had the authority to enforce those rules, broke them himself (more than once). But hey it looks like that doesn’t bother some people and they appear to think the hypocrisy is acceptable?
Also cannot fathom why it the connection to his subsequent lying about it doesn’t make it even worse for some people? I guess I have a different moral compass?"You've lost me now 'impossible to prove' and 'even if most didn't (they did)(sounds like fact)' And then you go on to put yourself higher than others with your 'moral compass', come on now, you're speaking about empathy which literally means understanding others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry I don't understand, no. It's not like Boris was able to break the rules with impunity, he got caught and fined. To me this is like someone saying "Boris got caught doing 80mph on the motorway, yet I'm not allowed to park on the double yellow lines when I visit my mum". Not only are the 2 things different rules, but Boris got caught and fined for his infringement. I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave. And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us. If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy? And here we go again, adding extra stuff on, that somehow "makes it worse". The only explanation that makes sense to me is that you just hate Boris Johnson, and are willing to blame him for every single bad thing that has happened in the last few years." “Adding extra stuff on” is a weird take. Quite clearly intimately linked as the questions in Parliament were about the rules being broken and he lied which led to a Parliamentary Committee to investigate whether he deliberately misled Parliament. They determined that he did and recommended sanctions for MPs to vote on. However, Johnson ran away instead. How is that “adding extra stuff”? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
Well personally I think most did follow the rules. So there we are. Impossible to prove beyond personal experience and observation. Maybe I live in a more law abiding area?
Were there minor infringements like going for two walks instead of one? Probably. Did most people have house or garden parties over the xmas period? No. Not in my experience or observation.
And even if most did (they didn’t) it still doesn’t change the fact that the leader of the country, the person who signs off on all the rules and ensured the police had the authority to enforce those rules, broke them himself (more than once). But hey it looks like that doesn’t bother some people and they appear to think the hypocrisy is acceptable?
Also cannot fathom why it the connection to his subsequent lying about it doesn’t make it even worse for some people? I guess I have a different moral compass?
You've lost me now 'impossible to prove' and 'even if most didn't (they did)(sounds like fact)'
And then you go on to put yourself higher than others with your 'moral compass', come on now, you're speaking about empathy which literally means understanding others."Once again these forums never cease to amaze me. The tactic seems to focus down tight on a single aspect of an issue then argue over minutiae and tangential issues. My point was anecdotals are impossible to prove. You say most didn’t follow rules and I saw most did. There we go. Neither of us can prove it. And yes, if someone cannot understand the outrage caused by Johnson’s behaviour then that would indicate a lower morale compass to me as it says those people are not bothered by rules being broken by our rulemakers and lies then being told about it in the highest legislative authority in the land. Regardless of this lovely set of side arguments... 1. Johnson broke the rules and got caught. 2. Johnson lied about to Parliament. 3. Johnson lied about it to Parliamentary Committee. 4. Committee makes recommendations on sanctions for MPs to vote on. 5. Johnson runs away before facing the music. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy? . It was probably only a small but highly vocal minority who were angry at Boris for allegedly breaking the lock down rules . Imagine spending your time investigating matters that many consider to be trivial. There is little evidence that he either lied to or mislead parliament. The Boris haters would love to think that he did . In many cases their opinion is an insult. They are using lockdown deaths in order to make a political point
Those who worked through Covid were a lot more concerned with helping people , not using deaths to score a political point
If you had helped famuily members throughout your life you would accept that in the circumstances it would not be possible to attend a funeral.
Neither Kier Starner nor Angela Rayner were prosecuted for breaking lockdown rules . They were nor leading the country.
Boris Johnson was spending all his time trying to save the country from disaster. What type of person spends their time investigating whether ot not a pm broke lockdown rules ?. Probably only a fully paid up member of the pious and self righteous brigade. "Pat that is vicious Tory Trolling!!! Need to add though... Starmer didn't do the same thing. Seven (7!!) inquiries found no evidence he'd broken laws, and literally years of digging by the Tory press couldn't uncover any evidence of illegality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces.
I keep seeing this argument which just continues to miss the point by a country mile. It has already been said repeatedly in this thread. The issue is not the parties (plural and not a polite cheese & wine evening but full in boozy sessions, in one case with a DJ) it is that Johnson lied about it when caught. Continued to lie and doubled down on the lies. He lied to Parliament. He lied to Parliamentary Committees. So if he can lie about that what else can he lie about?
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. He’s gone. He ran away rather than face the prospect of an unprecedented 90 day suspension from Parliament. Clearly the actions of an innocent man."Well a politician lying is hardly revelatory news. Admittedly, Boris overstepped the mark even by Westminster's low standards. I just think the nation is obsessed with some historic parties at a time when we have far greater issues to worry about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces.
I keep seeing this argument which just continues to miss the point by a country mile. It has already been said repeatedly in this thread. The issue is not the parties (plural and not a polite cheese & wine evening but full in boozy sessions, in one case with a DJ) it is that Johnson lied about it when caught. Continued to lie and doubled down on the lies. He lied to Parliament. He lied to Parliamentary Committees. So if he can lie about that what else can he lie about?
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. He’s gone. He ran away rather than face the prospect of an unprecedented 90 day suspension from Parliament. Clearly the actions of an innocent man.
Well a politician lying is hardly revelatory news. Admittedly, Boris overstepped the mark even by Westminster's low standards. I just think the nation is obsessed with some historic parties at a time when we have far greater issues to worry about. "Oh for sure there is plenty to focus on but these things are always investigated after the event. Eg the Covid Inquiry has only just started. I don’t think anyone would want historic issues to be avoided or forgotten about just because it was a year or two ago? I don’t think the nation is particularly obsessed with the parties as much as the subsequent lies and how that reflects on Johnson’s character. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces.
I keep seeing this argument which just continues to miss the point by a country mile. It has already been said repeatedly in this thread. The issue is not the parties (plural and not a polite cheese & wine evening but full in boozy sessions, in one case with a DJ) it is that Johnson lied about it when caught. Continued to lie and doubled down on the lies. He lied to Parliament. He lied to Parliamentary Committees. So if he can lie about that what else can he lie about?
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. He’s gone. He ran away rather than face the prospect of an unprecedented 90 day suspension from Parliament. Clearly the actions of an innocent man.
Well a politician lying is hardly revelatory news. Admittedly, Boris overstepped the mark even by Westminster's low standards. I just think the nation is obsessed with some historic parties at a time when we have far greater issues to worry about. "There are greater issues. But there is room to consider and discuss this too. I can understand why people are upset about it. I can understand why people don't care too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces.
I keep seeing this argument which just continues to miss the point by a country mile. It has already been said repeatedly in this thread. The issue is not the parties (plural and not a polite cheese & wine evening but full in boozy sessions, in one case with a DJ) it is that Johnson lied about it when caught. Continued to lie and doubled down on the lies. He lied to Parliament. He lied to Parliamentary Committees. So if he can lie about that what else can he lie about?
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. He’s gone. He ran away rather than face the prospect of an unprecedented 90 day suspension from Parliament. Clearly the actions of an innocent man.
Well a politician lying is hardly revelatory news. Admittedly, Boris overstepped the mark even by Westminster's low standards. I just think the nation is obsessed with some historic parties at a time when we have far greater issues to worry about.
Oh for sure there is plenty to focus on but these things are always investigated after the event. Eg the Covid Inquiry has only just started. I don’t think anyone would want historic issues to be avoided or forgotten about just because it was a year or two ago? I don’t think the nation is particularly obsessed with the parties as much as the subsequent lies and how that reflects on Johnson’s character. "Covid Inquiry = complete waste of time, effort and public money that will just enrich lawyers and other self-righteous grifters over three years before arriving at some biased and incorrect conclusions. The only thing we need to know from Covid is "how, where and when did the pathogen originate and how do we prevent it happening again". Good luck with that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces.
I keep seeing this argument which just continues to miss the point by a country mile. It has already been said repeatedly in this thread. The issue is not the parties (plural and not a polite cheese & wine evening but full in boozy sessions, in one case with a DJ) it is that Johnson lied about it when caught. Continued to lie and doubled down on the lies. He lied to Parliament. He lied to Parliamentary Committees. So if he can lie about that what else can he lie about?
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. He’s gone. He ran away rather than face the prospect of an unprecedented 90 day suspension from Parliament. Clearly the actions of an innocent man.
Well a politician lying is hardly revelatory news. Admittedly, Boris overstepped the mark even by Westminster's low standards. I just think the nation is obsessed with some historic parties at a time when we have far greater issues to worry about.
Oh for sure there is plenty to focus on but these things are always investigated after the event. Eg the Covid Inquiry has only just started. I don’t think anyone would want historic issues to be avoided or forgotten about just because it was a year or two ago? I don’t think the nation is particularly obsessed with the parties as much as the subsequent lies and how that reflects on Johnson’s character.
Covid Inquiry = complete waste of time, effort and public money that will just enrich lawyers and other self-righteous grifters over three years before arriving at some biased and incorrect conclusions. The only thing we need to know from Covid is "how, where and when did the pathogen originate and how do we prevent it happening again". Good luck with that "Would you not also hope that those who enriched themselves or their cronies, friends, families, at the expense of taxpayers, not be fully exposed and hopefully sanctioned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces.
I keep seeing this argument which just continues to miss the point by a country mile. It has already been said repeatedly in this thread. The issue is not the parties (plural and not a polite cheese & wine evening but full in boozy sessions, in one case with a DJ) it is that Johnson lied about it when caught. Continued to lie and doubled down on the lies. He lied to Parliament. He lied to Parliamentary Committees. So if he can lie about that what else can he lie about?
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. He’s gone. He ran away rather than face the prospect of an unprecedented 90 day suspension from Parliament. Clearly the actions of an innocent man.
Well a politician lying is hardly revelatory news. Admittedly, Boris overstepped the mark even by Westminster's low standards. I just think the nation is obsessed with some historic parties at a time when we have far greater issues to worry about.
Oh for sure there is plenty to focus on but these things are always investigated after the event. Eg the Covid Inquiry has only just started. I don’t think anyone would want historic issues to be avoided or forgotten about just because it was a year or two ago? I don’t think the nation is particularly obsessed with the parties as much as the subsequent lies and how that reflects on Johnson’s character.
Covid Inquiry = complete waste of time, effort and public money that will just enrich lawyers and other self-righteous grifters over three years before arriving at some biased and incorrect conclusions. The only thing we need to know from Covid is "how, where and when did the pathogen originate and how do we prevent it happening again". Good luck with that "So you don’t think we should look at why we were so slow to act when we could see what was happening in Italy for at least two weeks prior? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces.
I keep seeing this argument which just continues to miss the point by a country mile. It has already been said repeatedly in this thread. The issue is not the parties (plural and not a polite cheese & wine evening but full in boozy sessions, in one case with a DJ) it is that Johnson lied about it when caught. Continued to lie and doubled down on the lies. He lied to Parliament. He lied to Parliamentary Committees. So if he can lie about that what else can he lie about?
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. He’s gone. He ran away rather than face the prospect of an unprecedented 90 day suspension from Parliament. Clearly the actions of an innocent man.
Well a politician lying is hardly revelatory news. Admittedly, Boris overstepped the mark even by Westminster's low standards. I just think the nation is obsessed with some historic parties at a time when we have far greater issues to worry about.
Oh for sure there is plenty to focus on but these things are always investigated after the event. Eg the Covid Inquiry has only just started. I don’t think anyone would want historic issues to be avoided or forgotten about just because it was a year or two ago? I don’t think the nation is particularly obsessed with the parties as much as the subsequent lies and how that reflects on Johnson’s character.
Covid Inquiry = complete waste of time, effort and public money that will just enrich lawyers and other self-righteous grifters over three years before arriving at some biased and incorrect conclusions. The only thing we need to know from Covid is "how, where and when did the pathogen originate and how do we prevent it happening again". Good luck with that "Are you genuinely not interested in what mismanagement may have happened? I'm certainly interested in how much £££ of public money was put into the bank accounts of Tory party donors for PPE start up companies. Leave the scientific community to study how the virus shifted to humans. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces.
I keep seeing this argument which just continues to miss the point by a country mile. It has already been said repeatedly in this thread. The issue is not the parties (plural and not a polite cheese & wine evening but full in boozy sessions, in one case with a DJ) it is that Johnson lied about it when caught. Continued to lie and doubled down on the lies. He lied to Parliament. He lied to Parliamentary Committees. So if he can lie about that what else can he lie about?
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. He’s gone. He ran away rather than face the prospect of an unprecedented 90 day suspension from Parliament. Clearly the actions of an innocent man.
Well a politician lying is hardly revelatory news. Admittedly, Boris overstepped the mark even by Westminster's low standards. I just think the nation is obsessed with some historic parties at a time when we have far greater issues to worry about.
Oh for sure there is plenty to focus on but these things are always investigated after the event. Eg the Covid Inquiry has only just started. I don’t think anyone would want historic issues to be avoided or forgotten about just because it was a year or two ago? I don’t think the nation is particularly obsessed with the parties as much as the subsequent lies and how that reflects on Johnson’s character.
Covid Inquiry = complete waste of time, effort and public money that will just enrich lawyers and other self-righteous grifters over three years before arriving at some biased and incorrect conclusions. The only thing we need to know from Covid is "how, where and when did the pathogen originate and how do we prevent it happening again". Good luck with that
Are you genuinely not interested in what mismanagement may have happened?
I'm certainly interested in how much £££ of public money was put into the bank accounts of Tory party donors for PPE start up companies.
Leave the scientific community to study how the virus shifted to humans. "It was a crisis! A pandemic! The REAL waste of money is 3-years of navel-gazing at taxpayer expense. Are you confident these pompous oafs are going to settle on the right conclusions? I'm not! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces.
I keep seeing this argument which just continues to miss the point by a country mile. It has already been said repeatedly in this thread. The issue is not the parties (plural and not a polite cheese & wine evening but full in boozy sessions, in one case with a DJ) it is that Johnson lied about it when caught. Continued to lie and doubled down on the lies. He lied to Parliament. He lied to Parliamentary Committees. So if he can lie about that what else can he lie about?
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. He’s gone. He ran away rather than face the prospect of an unprecedented 90 day suspension from Parliament. Clearly the actions of an innocent man.
Well a politician lying is hardly revelatory news. Admittedly, Boris overstepped the mark even by Westminster's low standards. I just think the nation is obsessed with some historic parties at a time when we have far greater issues to worry about.
Oh for sure there is plenty to focus on but these things are always investigated after the event. Eg the Covid Inquiry has only just started. I don’t think anyone would want historic issues to be avoided or forgotten about just because it was a year or two ago? I don’t think the nation is particularly obsessed with the parties as much as the subsequent lies and how that reflects on Johnson’s character.
Covid Inquiry = complete waste of time, effort and public money that will just enrich lawyers and other self-righteous grifters over three years before arriving at some biased and incorrect conclusions. The only thing we need to know from Covid is "how, where and when did the pathogen originate and how do we prevent it happening again". Good luck with that
So you don’t think we should look at why we were so slow to act when we could see what was happening in Italy for at least two weeks prior?"No I don't. Because even if the true shortcomings are identified (unlikley), the lessons won't be learned for next time anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces.
I keep seeing this argument which just continues to miss the point by a country mile. It has already been said repeatedly in this thread. The issue is not the parties (plural and not a polite cheese & wine evening but full in boozy sessions, in one case with a DJ) it is that Johnson lied about it when caught. Continued to lie and doubled down on the lies. He lied to Parliament. He lied to Parliamentary Committees. So if he can lie about that what else can he lie about?
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. He’s gone. He ran away rather than face the prospect of an unprecedented 90 day suspension from Parliament. Clearly the actions of an innocent man.
Well a politician lying is hardly revelatory news. Admittedly, Boris overstepped the mark even by Westminster's low standards. I just think the nation is obsessed with some historic parties at a time when we have far greater issues to worry about.
Oh for sure there is plenty to focus on but these things are always investigated after the event. Eg the Covid Inquiry has only just started. I don’t think anyone would want historic issues to be avoided or forgotten about just because it was a year or two ago? I don’t think the nation is particularly obsessed with the parties as much as the subsequent lies and how that reflects on Johnson’s character.
Covid Inquiry = complete waste of time, effort and public money that will just enrich lawyers and other self-righteous grifters over three years before arriving at some biased and incorrect conclusions. The only thing we need to know from Covid is "how, where and when did the pathogen originate and how do we prevent it happening again". Good luck with that
Are you genuinely not interested in what mismanagement may have happened?
I'm certainly interested in how much £££ of public money was put into the bank accounts of Tory party donors for PPE start up companies.
Leave the scientific community to study how the virus shifted to humans.
It was a crisis! A pandemic! The REAL waste of money is 3-years of navel-gazing at taxpayer expense. Are you confident these pompous oafs are going to settle on the right conclusions? I'm not!"I want a proper inquiry. It was a crisis, it was a pandemic. The government should have been focussing on doing what's right for British people. Not taking advantage of the situation to rip off billions of taxpayers money to give to their mates. What do you mean by "3 years of naval-gazing"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces.
I keep seeing this argument which just continues to miss the point by a country mile. It has already been said repeatedly in this thread. The issue is not the parties (plural and not a polite cheese & wine evening but full in boozy sessions, in one case with a DJ) it is that Johnson lied about it when caught. Continued to lie and doubled down on the lies. He lied to Parliament. He lied to Parliamentary Committees. So if he can lie about that what else can he lie about?
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. He’s gone. He ran away rather than face the prospect of an unprecedented 90 day suspension from Parliament. Clearly the actions of an innocent man.
Well a politician lying is hardly revelatory news. Admittedly, Boris overstepped the mark even by Westminster's low standards. I just think the nation is obsessed with some historic parties at a time when we have far greater issues to worry about.
Oh for sure there is plenty to focus on but these things are always investigated after the event. Eg the Covid Inquiry has only just started. I don’t think anyone would want historic issues to be avoided or forgotten about just because it was a year or two ago? I don’t think the nation is particularly obsessed with the parties as much as the subsequent lies and how that reflects on Johnson’s character.
Covid Inquiry = complete waste of time, effort and public money that will just enrich lawyers and other self-righteous grifters over three years before arriving at some biased and incorrect conclusions. The only thing we need to know from Covid is "how, where and when did the pathogen originate and how do we prevent it happening again". Good luck with that
Are you genuinely not interested in what mismanagement may have happened?
I'm certainly interested in how much £££ of public money was put into the bank accounts of Tory party donors for PPE start up companies.
Leave the scientific community to study how the virus shifted to humans.
It was a crisis! A pandemic! The REAL waste of money is 3-years of navel-gazing at taxpayer expense. Are you confident these pompous oafs are going to settle on the right conclusions? I'm not!
I want a proper inquiry.
It was a crisis, it was a pandemic. The government should have been focussing on doing what's right for British people. Not taking advantage of the situation to rip off billions of taxpayers money to give to their mates.
What do you mean by "3 years of naval-gazing"?"The enquiry is expected to last 3-years (it will likely be double that). A collection of the self-righteous asking fatuous questions of the clueless. All at taxpayers expense. What will it achieve? Nothing!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces.
I keep seeing this argument which just continues to miss the point by a country mile. It has already been said repeatedly in this thread. The issue is not the parties (plural and not a polite cheese & wine evening but full in boozy sessions, in one case with a DJ) it is that Johnson lied about it when caught. Continued to lie and doubled down on the lies. He lied to Parliament. He lied to Parliamentary Committees. So if he can lie about that what else can he lie about?
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. He’s gone. He ran away rather than face the prospect of an unprecedented 90 day suspension from Parliament. Clearly the actions of an innocent man.
Well a politician lying is hardly revelatory news. Admittedly, Boris overstepped the mark even by Westminster's low standards. I just think the nation is obsessed with some historic parties at a time when we have far greater issues to worry about.
Oh for sure there is plenty to focus on but these things are always investigated after the event. Eg the Covid Inquiry has only just started. I don’t think anyone would want historic issues to be avoided or forgotten about just because it was a year or two ago? I don’t think the nation is particularly obsessed with the parties as much as the subsequent lies and how that reflects on Johnson’s character.
Covid Inquiry = complete waste of time, effort and public money that will just enrich lawyers and other self-righteous grifters over three years before arriving at some biased and incorrect conclusions. The only thing we need to know from Covid is "how, where and when did the pathogen originate and how do we prevent it happening again". Good luck with that
Are you genuinely not interested in what mismanagement may have happened?
I'm certainly interested in how much £££ of public money was put into the bank accounts of Tory party donors for PPE start up companies.
Leave the scientific community to study how the virus shifted to humans.
It was a crisis! A pandemic! The REAL waste of money is 3-years of navel-gazing at taxpayer expense. Are you confident these pompous oafs are going to settle on the right conclusions? I'm not!
I want a proper inquiry.
It was a crisis, it was a pandemic. The government should have been focussing on doing what's right for British people. Not taking advantage of the situation to rip off billions of taxpayers money to give to their mates.
What do you mean by "3 years of naval-gazing"?
The enquiry is expected to last 3-years (it will likely be double that). A collection of the self-righteous asking fatuous questions of the clueless. All at taxpayers expense. What will it achieve? Nothing!!!"Oh I see. Got you. Seeing as they gave billions to their pals for largely unusable PPE. Spending money on an enquiry seems small fry. I don't think these things should be left. We should as a nation scrutinise the actions of the government as tightly as possible. The moment we give up, it makes it easier for them to get away with shit like they did during the pandemic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces.
I keep seeing this argument which just continues to miss the point by a country mile. It has already been said repeatedly in this thread. The issue is not the parties (plural and not a polite cheese & wine evening but full in boozy sessions, in one case with a DJ) it is that Johnson lied about it when caught. Continued to lie and doubled down on the lies. He lied to Parliament. He lied to Parliamentary Committees. So if he can lie about that what else can he lie about?
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. He’s gone. He ran away rather than face the prospect of an unprecedented 90 day suspension from Parliament. Clearly the actions of an innocent man.
Well a politician lying is hardly revelatory news. Admittedly, Boris overstepped the mark even by Westminster's low standards. I just think the nation is obsessed with some historic parties at a time when we have far greater issues to worry about.
Oh for sure there is plenty to focus on but these things are always investigated after the event. Eg the Covid Inquiry has only just started. I don’t think anyone would want historic issues to be avoided or forgotten about just because it was a year or two ago? I don’t think the nation is particularly obsessed with the parties as much as the subsequent lies and how that reflects on Johnson’s character.
Covid Inquiry = complete waste of time, effort and public money that will just enrich lawyers and other self-righteous grifters over three years before arriving at some biased and incorrect conclusions. The only thing we need to know from Covid is "how, where and when did the pathogen originate and how do we prevent it happening again". Good luck with that
Are you genuinely not interested in what mismanagement may have happened?
I'm certainly interested in how much £££ of public money was put into the bank accounts of Tory party donors for PPE start up companies.
Leave the scientific community to study how the virus shifted to humans.
It was a crisis! A pandemic! The REAL waste of money is 3-years of navel-gazing at taxpayer expense. Are you confident these pompous oafs are going to settle on the right conclusions? I'm not!
I want a proper inquiry.
It was a crisis, it was a pandemic. The government should have been focussing on doing what's right for British people. Not taking advantage of the situation to rip off billions of taxpayers money to give to their mates.
What do you mean by "3 years of naval-gazing"?
The enquiry is expected to last 3-years (it will likely be double that). A collection of the self-righteous asking fatuous questions of the clueless. All at taxpayers expense. What will it achieve? Nothing!!!
Oh I see. Got you.
Seeing as they gave billions to their pals for largely unusable PPE. Spending money on an enquiry seems small fry.
I don't think these things should be left. We should as a nation scrutinise the actions of the government as tightly as possible. The moment we give up, it makes it easier for them to get away with shit like they did during the pandemic. "I agree wrong doing shouldn't be ignored, but not convinced a costly enquiry brings anything. When the conclusions come in 3 to 5 years, all this will have been forgotten. The best solution is just vote out the Tories next year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. " And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces.
I keep seeing this argument which just continues to miss the point by a country mile. It has already been said repeatedly in this thread. The issue is not the parties (plural and not a polite cheese & wine evening but full in boozy sessions, in one case with a DJ) it is that Johnson lied about it when caught. Continued to lie and doubled down on the lies. He lied to Parliament. He lied to Parliamentary Committees. So if he can lie about that what else can he lie about?
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. He’s gone. He ran away rather than face the prospect of an unprecedented 90 day suspension from Parliament. Clearly the actions of an innocent man.
Well a politician lying is hardly revelatory news. Admittedly, Boris overstepped the mark even by Westminster's low standards. I just think the nation is obsessed with some historic parties at a time when we have far greater issues to worry about.
Oh for sure there is plenty to focus on but these things are always investigated after the event. Eg the Covid Inquiry has only just started. I don’t think anyone would want historic issues to be avoided or forgotten about just because it was a year or two ago? I don’t think the nation is particularly obsessed with the parties as much as the subsequent lies and how that reflects on Johnson’s character.
Covid Inquiry = complete waste of time, effort and public money that will just enrich lawyers and other self-righteous grifters over three years before arriving at some biased and incorrect conclusions. The only thing we need to know from Covid is "how, where and when did the pathogen originate and how do we prevent it happening again". Good luck with that
Are you genuinely not interested in what mismanagement may have happened?
I'm certainly interested in how much £££ of public money was put into the bank accounts of Tory party donors for PPE start up companies.
Leave the scientific community to study how the virus shifted to humans.
It was a crisis! A pandemic! The REAL waste of money is 3-years of navel-gazing at taxpayer expense. Are you confident these pompous oafs are going to settle on the right conclusions? I'm not!
I want a proper inquiry.
It was a crisis, it was a pandemic. The government should have been focussing on doing what's right for British people. Not taking advantage of the situation to rip off billions of taxpayers money to give to their mates.
What do you mean by "3 years of naval-gazing"?
The enquiry is expected to last 3-years (it will likely be double that). A collection of the self-righteous asking fatuous questions of the clueless. All at taxpayers expense. What will it achieve? Nothing!!!
Oh I see. Got you.
Seeing as they gave billions to their pals for largely unusable PPE. Spending money on an enquiry seems small fry.
I don't think these things should be left. We should as a nation scrutinise the actions of the government as tightly as possible. The moment we give up, it makes it easier for them to get away with shit like they did during the pandemic.
I agree wrong doing shouldn't be ignored, but not convinced a costly enquiry brings anything. When the conclusions come in 3 to 5 years, all this will have been forgotten. The best solution is just vote out the Tories next year. "I agree that the enquiry is likely to be inadequate. They should be held accountable. And personally I can't see them being voted out anytime soon sadly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she " Did Sturgeon ever try to get a reporter beaten up? Did she illegally prorogue parliament? Johnson’s popularity came from a public that are largely apolitical and were sick of the status quo - not from competence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Did Sturgeon ever try to get a reporter beaten up? Did she illegally prorogue parliament? Johnson’s popularity came from a public that are largely apolitical and were sick of the status quo - not from competence. " Tbh, I think his ‘popularity’ has been over estimated, the tories won in 2019 mainly because of Brexit and corbyn . What can’t be disputed is that he is extremely unpopular now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she " Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth." I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory." No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory." Brexit Corbyn | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault "The numbers of voters were near identical. The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017. The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017 The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019 The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017 The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019 This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault
The numbers of voters were near identical.
The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017.
The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017
The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019
The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017
The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019
This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory.
"Why did traditional Tory voters decide not to vote? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault
The numbers of voters were near identical.
The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017.
The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017
The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019
The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017
The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019
This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory.
"I forgot to add: Labour lost 60 seats in 2019 with 32.2 % of the vote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault
The numbers of voters were near identical.
The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017.
The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017
The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019
The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017
The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019
This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory.
Why did traditional Tory voters decide not to vote? "A number of reasons are very likely 2 of them being: Brexit, not wanting leave and hoping a different government would change direction. Johnson was not supported by all tory voters who saw him for what he was. May was pushed out and he was hovered around the decision to stay or remain, only choosing sides once he was sure which way he should go to secure his Premiership | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault
The numbers of voters were near identical.
The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017.
The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017
The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019
The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017
The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019
This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory.
Why did traditional Tory voters decide not to vote?
A number of reasons are very likely 2 of them being:
Brexit, not wanting leave and hoping a different government would change direction.
Johnson was not supported by all tory voters who saw him for what he was. May was pushed out and he was hovered around the decision to stay or remain, only choosing sides once he was sure which way he should go to secure his Premiership
"Fair enough, so he wasn’t really that popular with Tory voters | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory." Labour lost most of their votes to the Lib Dem’s and staying at home. There were some Tory switchers, but around 10-11%. They lost a further 19-20% to others/no vote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault
The numbers of voters were near identical.
The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017.
The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017
The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019
The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017
The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019
This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory.
"Agreed so what is your point? Aren’t we just agreeing? There was a bit of swings and roundabouts but because of FPTP Johnson won a big majority. However, his “popularity” is something of a myth! And by your point on traditional Tory voters not voting it seems be was less popular than May with Tory voters and only really won it due to traditional Labour voters who wanted Brexit. So erm aren’t we agreeing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
In my experience almost nobody followed the rules 'to the letter'. I saw breaches, mostly minor, every day. And so it should be, people have to make personal judgement calls in life. This ongoing furore over a wine + cheese party is absurd given the REAL issues our country faces.
I keep seeing this argument which just continues to miss the point by a country mile. It has already been said repeatedly in this thread. The issue is not the parties (plural and not a polite cheese & wine evening but full in boozy sessions, in one case with a DJ) it is that Johnson lied about it when caught. Continued to lie and doubled down on the lies. He lied to Parliament. He lied to Parliamentary Committees. So if he can lie about that what else can he lie about?
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. He’s gone. He ran away rather than face the prospect of an unprecedented 90 day suspension from Parliament. Clearly the actions of an innocent man.
Well a politician lying is hardly revelatory news. Admittedly, Boris overstepped the mark even by Westminster's low standards. I just think the nation is obsessed with some historic parties at a time when we have far greater issues to worry about.
Oh for sure there is plenty to focus on but these things are always investigated after the event. Eg the Covid Inquiry has only just started. I don’t think anyone would want historic issues to be avoided or forgotten about just because it was a year or two ago? I don’t think the nation is particularly obsessed with the parties as much as the subsequent lies and how that reflects on Johnson’s character.
Covid Inquiry = complete waste of time, effort and public money that will just enrich lawyers and other self-righteous grifters over three years before arriving at some biased and incorrect conclusions. The only thing we need to know from Covid is "how, where and when did the pathogen originate and how do we prevent it happening again". Good luck with that
Are you genuinely not interested in what mismanagement may have happened?
I'm certainly interested in how much £££ of public money was put into the bank accounts of Tory party donors for PPE start up companies.
Leave the scientific community to study how the virus shifted to humans.
It was a crisis! A pandemic! The REAL waste of money is 3-years of navel-gazing at taxpayer expense. Are you confident these pompous oafs are going to settle on the right conclusions? I'm not!
I want a proper inquiry.
It was a crisis, it was a pandemic. The government should have been focussing on doing what's right for British people. Not taking advantage of the situation to rip off billions of taxpayers money to give to their mates.
What do you mean by "3 years of naval-gazing"?
The enquiry is expected to last 3-years (it will likely be double that). A collection of the self-righteous asking fatuous questions of the clueless. All at taxpayers expense. What will it achieve? Nothing!!!
Oh I see. Got you.
Seeing as they gave billions to their pals for largely unusable PPE. Spending money on an enquiry seems small fry.
I don't think these things should be left. We should as a nation scrutinise the actions of the government as tightly as possible. The moment we give up, it makes it easier for them to get away with shit like they did during the pandemic.
I agree wrong doing shouldn't be ignored, but not convinced a costly enquiry brings anything. When the conclusions come in 3 to 5 years, all this will have been forgotten. The best solution is just vote out the Tories next year.
I agree that the enquiry is likely to be inadequate.
They should be held accountable. And personally I can't see them being voted out anytime soon sadly. "Agreed, but my main reason for agreeing was to use the opportunity to join the many who have requoted that long screed because I want to illustrate the the ridiculous arbitrary 175 posts being the reason for a thread getting too long, whereas true length (as we all know) on fab is another matter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault
The numbers of voters were near identical.
The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017.
The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017
The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019
The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017
The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019
This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory.
Why did traditional Tory voters decide not to vote?
A number of reasons are very likely 2 of them being:
Brexit, not wanting leave and hoping a different government would change direction.
Johnson was not supported by all tory voters who saw him for what he was. May was pushed out and he was hovered around the decision to stay or remain, only choosing sides once he was sure which way he should go to secure his Premiership
Fair enough, so he wasn’t really that popular with Tory voters "No, he was popular with tory and labour leave voters. He split the pack and was always destined to become a PM who was not liked because of that. His desire for the role of PM led him to make a decision on remain or leave, he wrote 2 articles in the the Telegraph explaining the pro-remain and pro-leave, interestingly the outcomes he wrote for remain and leave are remarkably accurate in predictions of failures and even Russian aggression. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault
The numbers of voters were near identical.
The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017.
The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017
The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019
The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017
The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019
This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory.
Agreed so what is your point? Aren’t we just agreeing? There was a bit of swings and roundabouts but because of FPTP Johnson won a big majority. However, his “popularity” is something of a myth! And by your point on traditional Tory voters not voting it seems be was less popular than May with Tory voters and only really won it due to traditional Labour voters who wanted Brexit. So erm aren’t we agreeing?"Yes, my response was to NotMe who seems to suggest that on voters turned to tories en-masse. It’s a myth perpetuated by brexiters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault
The numbers of voters were near identical.
The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017.
The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017
The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019
The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017
The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019
This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory.
Why did traditional Tory voters decide not to vote?
A number of reasons are very likely 2 of them being:
Brexit, not wanting leave and hoping a different government would change direction.
Johnson was not supported by all tory voters who saw him for what he was. May was pushed out and he was hovered around the decision to stay or remain, only choosing sides once he was sure which way he should go to secure his Premiership
Fair enough, so he wasn’t really that popular with Tory voters
No, he was popular with tory and labour leave voters. He split the pack and was always destined to become a PM who was not liked because of that.
His desire for the role of PM led him to make a decision on remain or leave, he wrote 2 articles in the the Telegraph explaining the pro-remain and pro-leave, interestingly the outcomes he wrote for remain and leave are remarkably accurate in predictions of failures and even Russian aggression.
"So he predicted the brexit clusterfuck. Pushed the country into it anyway, and people still like him Amazing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
Well personally I think most did follow the rules. So there we are. Impossible to prove beyond personal experience and observation. Maybe I live in a more law abiding area?
Were there minor infringements like going for two walks instead of one? Probably. Did most people have house or garden parties over the xmas period? No. Not in my experience or observation.
And even if most did (they didn’t) it still doesn’t change the fact that the leader of the country, the person who signs off on all the rules and ensured the police had the authority to enforce those rules, broke them himself (more than once). But hey it looks like that doesn’t bother some people and they appear to think the hypocrisy is acceptable?
Also cannot fathom why it the connection to his subsequent lying about it doesn’t make it even worse for some people? I guess I have a different moral compass?
You've lost me now 'impossible to prove' and 'even if most didn't (they did)(sounds like fact)'
And then you go on to put yourself higher than others with your 'moral compass', come on now, you're speaking about empathy which literally means understanding others.
Once again these forums never cease to amaze me. The tactic seems to focus down tight on a single aspect of an issue then argue over minutiae and tangential issues.
My point was anecdotals are impossible to prove. You say most didn’t follow rules and I saw most did. There we go. Neither of us can prove it.
And yes, if someone cannot understand the outrage caused by Johnson’s behaviour then that would indicate a lower morale compass to me as it says those people are not bothered by rules being broken by our rulemakers and lies then being told about it in the highest legislative authority in the land.
Regardless of this lovely set of side arguments...
1. Johnson broke the rules and got caught.
2. Johnson lied about to Parliament.
3. Johnson lied about it to Parliamentary Committee.
4. Committee makes recommendations on sanctions for MPs to vote on.
5. Johnson runs away before facing the music. "No one is arguing about the 5 points you make. This forum 'never ceases to amaze you' because you're absolutely clouded by your hatred for Johnson, that's fine, you're entitled to it. Others think differently. It doesn't mean they have no empathy towards people who lost loved ones, which in actual fact is probably quite a few of us. Or maybe just sit upon your 'moral high horse', that'll probably help the debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault
The numbers of voters were near identical.
The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017.
The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017
The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019
The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017
The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019
This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory.
Agreed so what is your point? Aren’t we just agreeing? There was a bit of swings and roundabouts but because of FPTP Johnson won a big majority. However, his “popularity” is something of a myth! And by your point on traditional Tory voters not voting it seems be was less popular than May with Tory voters and only really won it due to traditional Labour voters who wanted Brexit. So erm aren’t we agreeing?
Yes, my response was to NotMe who seems to suggest that on voters turned to tories en-masse. It’s a myth perpetuated by brexiters."You are being rather confusing today.... The facts and figures are there for you to digest, if you choose to put a spin on it then fill your boots but don't suggest I have because I have not..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault
The numbers of voters were near identical.
The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017.
The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017
The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019
The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017
The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019
This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory.
Why did traditional Tory voters decide not to vote?
A number of reasons are very likely 2 of them being:
Brexit, not wanting leave and hoping a different government would change direction.
Johnson was not supported by all tory voters who saw him for what he was. May was pushed out and he was hovered around the decision to stay or remain, only choosing sides once he was sure which way he should go to secure his Premiership
Fair enough, so he wasn’t really that popular with Tory voters
No, he was popular with tory and labour leave voters. He split the pack and was always destined to become a PM who was not liked because of that.
His desire for the role of PM led him to make a decision on remain or leave, he wrote 2 articles in the the Telegraph explaining the pro-remain and pro-leave, interestingly the outcomes he wrote for remain and leave are remarkably accurate in predictions of failures and even Russian aggression.
So he predicted the brexit clusterfuck. Pushed the country into it anyway, and people still like him
Amazing."He was used as a means to an end, liked is stretching it. As soon as the job was done he was no longer needed and was always on his way out after that. Covid kept him in place by default, if covid hadn't happened I would imagine his undoing would have been very similar to now, but that is me speculating on an outcome based on his track record. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault
The numbers of voters were near identical.
The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017.
The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017
The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019
The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017
The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019
This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory.
Why did traditional Tory voters decide not to vote?
A number of reasons are very likely 2 of them being:
Brexit, not wanting leave and hoping a different government would change direction.
Johnson was not supported by all tory voters who saw him for what he was. May was pushed out and he was hovered around the decision to stay or remain, only choosing sides once he was sure which way he should go to secure his Premiership
Fair enough, so he wasn’t really that popular with Tory voters
No, he was popular with tory and labour leave voters. He split the pack and was always destined to become a PM who was not liked because of that.
His desire for the role of PM led him to make a decision on remain or leave, he wrote 2 articles in the the Telegraph explaining the pro-remain and pro-leave, interestingly the outcomes he wrote for remain and leave are remarkably accurate in predictions of failures and even Russian aggression.
So he predicted the brexit clusterfuck. Pushed the country into it anyway, and people still like him
Amazing.
He was used as a means to an end, liked is stretching it.
As soon as the job was done he was no longer needed and was always on his way out after that.
Covid kept him in place by default, if covid hadn't happened I would imagine his undoing would have been very similar to now, but that is me speculating on an outcome based on his track record. "Agreed
Johnson was a compromised sock puppet. Been saying it since he was Foreign Minister. Prior to that he was a buffoon who was Mayor of London. Then he got dangerous! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault
The numbers of voters were near identical.
The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017.
The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017
The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019
The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017
The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019
This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory.
Why did traditional Tory voters decide not to vote?
A number of reasons are very likely 2 of them being:
Brexit, not wanting leave and hoping a different government would change direction.
Johnson was not supported by all tory voters who saw him for what he was. May was pushed out and he was hovered around the decision to stay or remain, only choosing sides once he was sure which way he should go to secure his Premiership
Fair enough, so he wasn’t really that popular with Tory voters
No, he was popular with tory and labour leave voters. He split the pack and was always destined to become a PM who was not liked because of that.
His desire for the role of PM led him to make a decision on remain or leave, he wrote 2 articles in the the Telegraph explaining the pro-remain and pro-leave, interestingly the outcomes he wrote for remain and leave are remarkably accurate in predictions of failures and even Russian aggression.
So he predicted the brexit clusterfuck. Pushed the country into it anyway, and people still like him
Amazing.
He was used as a means to an end, liked is stretching it.
As soon as the job was done he was no longer needed and was always on his way out after that.
Covid kept him in place by default, if covid hadn't happened I would imagine his undoing would have been very similar to now, but that is me speculating on an outcome based on his track record. "Fair enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
Well personally I think most did follow the rules. So there we are. Impossible to prove beyond personal experience and observation. Maybe I live in a more law abiding area?
Were there minor infringements like going for two walks instead of one? Probably. Did most people have house or garden parties over the xmas period? No. Not in my experience or observation.
And even if most did (they didn’t) it still doesn’t change the fact that the leader of the country, the person who signs off on all the rules and ensured the police had the authority to enforce those rules, broke them himself (more than once). But hey it looks like that doesn’t bother some people and they appear to think the hypocrisy is acceptable?
Also cannot fathom why it the connection to his subsequent lying about it doesn’t make it even worse for some people? I guess I have a different moral compass?
You've lost me now 'impossible to prove' and 'even if most didn't (they did)(sounds like fact)'
And then you go on to put yourself higher than others with your 'moral compass', come on now, you're speaking about empathy which literally means understanding others.
Once again these forums never cease to amaze me. The tactic seems to focus down tight on a single aspect of an issue then argue over minutiae and tangential issues.
My point was anecdotals are impossible to prove. You say most didn’t follow rules and I saw most did. There we go. Neither of us can prove it.
And yes, if someone cannot understand the outrage caused by Johnson’s behaviour then that would indicate a lower morale compass to me as it says those people are not bothered by rules being broken by our rulemakers and lies then being told about it in the highest legislative authority in the land.
Regardless of this lovely set of side arguments...
1. Johnson broke the rules and got caught.
2. Johnson lied about to Parliament.
3. Johnson lied about it to Parliamentary Committee.
4. Committee makes recommendations on sanctions for MPs to vote on.
5. Johnson runs away before facing the music.
No one is arguing about the 5 points you make.
This forum 'never ceases to amaze you' because you're absolutely clouded by your hatred for Johnson, that's fine, you're entitled to it.
Others think differently. It doesn't mean they have no empathy towards people who lost loved ones, which in actual fact is probably quite a few of us.
Or maybe just sit upon your 'moral high horse', that'll probably help the debate."If being able to see the link behind people’s grief for not being able to be with dying relatives and their anger at Johnson et al breaking the rules, then I am firmly in that saddle. Discretion doesn’t see (or want to see) the link and appeared to completely pooh pooh it. You opted to jump into this discussion which was between me and Discretion, nobody made you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault
The numbers of voters were near identical.
The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017.
The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017
The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019
The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017
The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019
This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory.
Agreed so what is your point? Aren’t we just agreeing? There was a bit of swings and roundabouts but because of FPTP Johnson won a big majority. However, his “popularity” is something of a myth! And by your point on traditional Tory voters not voting it seems be was less popular than May with Tory voters and only really won it due to traditional Labour voters who wanted Brexit. So erm aren’t we agreeing?
Yes, my response was to NotMe who seems to suggest that on voters turned to tories en-masse. It’s a myth perpetuated by brexiters.
You are being rather confusing today....
The facts and figures are there for you to digest, if you choose to put a spin on it then fill your boots but don't suggest I have because I have not....."The facts and figures and analysis of the 2017-2019 elections are freely available online. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault
The numbers of voters were near identical.
The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017.
The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017
The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019
The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017
The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019
This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory.
Agreed so what is your point? Aren’t we just agreeing? There was a bit of swings and roundabouts but because of FPTP Johnson won a big majority. However, his “popularity” is something of a myth! And by your point on traditional Tory voters not voting it seems be was less popular than May with Tory voters and only really won it due to traditional Labour voters who wanted Brexit. So erm aren’t we agreeing?
Yes, my response was to NotMe who seems to suggest that on voters turned to tories en-masse. It’s a myth perpetuated by brexiters.
You are being rather confusing today....
The facts and figures are there for you to digest, if you choose to put a spin on it then fill your boots but don't suggest I have because I have not.....
The facts and figures and analysis of the 2017-2019 elections are freely available online."Did Labour lose 47 seats to the tories in 2019? That would be people in those labour constituencies voting tory.... Spin it, go on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
Well personally I think most did follow the rules. So there we are. Impossible to prove beyond personal experience and observation. Maybe I live in a more law abiding area?
Were there minor infringements like going for two walks instead of one? Probably. Did most people have house or garden parties over the xmas period? No. Not in my experience or observation.
And even if most did (they didn’t) it still doesn’t change the fact that the leader of the country, the person who signs off on all the rules and ensured the police had the authority to enforce those rules, broke them himself (more than once). But hey it looks like that doesn’t bother some people and they appear to think the hypocrisy is acceptable?
Also cannot fathom why it the connection to his subsequent lying about it doesn’t make it even worse for some people? I guess I have a different moral compass?
You've lost me now 'impossible to prove' and 'even if most didn't (they did)(sounds like fact)'
And then you go on to put yourself higher than others with your 'moral compass', come on now, you're speaking about empathy which literally means understanding others.
Once again these forums never cease to amaze me. The tactic seems to focus down tight on a single aspect of an issue then argue over minutiae and tangential issues.
My point was anecdotals are impossible to prove. You say most didn’t follow rules and I saw most did. There we go. Neither of us can prove it.
And yes, if someone cannot understand the outrage caused by Johnson’s behaviour then that would indicate a lower morale compass to me as it says those people are not bothered by rules being broken by our rulemakers and lies then being told about it in the highest legislative authority in the land.
Regardless of this lovely set of side arguments...
1. Johnson broke the rules and got caught.
2. Johnson lied about to Parliament.
3. Johnson lied about it to Parliamentary Committee.
4. Committee makes recommendations on sanctions for MPs to vote on.
5. Johnson runs away before facing the music.
No one is arguing about the 5 points you make.
This forum 'never ceases to amaze you' because you're absolutely clouded by your hatred for Johnson, that's fine, you're entitled to it.
Others think differently. It doesn't mean they have no empathy towards people who lost loved ones, which in actual fact is probably quite a few of us.
Or maybe just sit upon your 'moral high horse', that'll probably help the debate.
If being able to see the link behind people’s grief for not being able to be with dying relatives and their anger at Johnson et al breaking the rules, then I am firmly in that saddle. Discretion doesn’t see (or want to see) the link and appeared to completely pooh pooh it. You opted to jump into this discussion which was between me and Discretion, nobody made you!"I initially replied to someone else but your sitting upon your horse so you obviously didn't understand that. If you want a completely private conversation then maybe take it private, as it stands this is a public forum. I haven't at any point said I don't see a link. I don't agree that you can't be empathetic towards those people and not care about the parties, that is how this started, then you added in the extra lies etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault
The numbers of voters were near identical.
The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017.
The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017
The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019
The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017
The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019
This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory.
Why did traditional Tory voters decide not to vote?
A number of reasons are very likely 2 of them being:
Brexit, not wanting leave and hoping a different government would change direction.
Johnson was not supported by all tory voters who saw him for what he was. May was pushed out and he was hovered around the decision to stay or remain, only choosing sides once he was sure which way he should go to secure his Premiership
Fair enough, so he wasn’t really that popular with Tory voters
No, he was popular with tory and labour leave voters. He split the pack and was always destined to become a PM who was not liked because of that.
His desire for the role of PM led him to make a decision on remain or leave, he wrote 2 articles in the the Telegraph explaining the pro-remain and pro-leave, interestingly the outcomes he wrote for remain and leave are remarkably accurate in predictions of failures and even Russian aggression.
So he predicted the brexit clusterfuck. Pushed the country into it anyway, and people still like him
Amazing.
He was used as a means to an end, liked is stretching it.
As soon as the job was done he was no longer needed and was always on his way out after that.
Covid kept him in place by default, if covid hadn't happened I would imagine his undoing would have been very similar to now, but that is me speculating on an outcome based on his track record. "tbf his "pro remain" wastill written as a Eurosceptic. It was reasons a leaver may chose to vote remain. Possible economic uncertainty (but less than the remain camp were suggesting), adding fuel to indyref2 and doing something that may encourage more swagger from Putin. It wasn't as much balancing argument as people make out imo. No testing of his own beliefs. not even a good attempt to convince himself there may be reasons to vote remain. Tbf, very few people would have done this exercise on any side. So not a stick to beat him with. Indeed ieven of he did a stronger article it's not a stick. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
Well personally I think most did follow the rules. So there we are. Impossible to prove beyond personal experience and observation. Maybe I live in a more law abiding area?
Were there minor infringements like going for two walks instead of one? Probably. Did most people have house or garden parties over the xmas period? No. Not in my experience or observation.
And even if most did (they didn’t) it still doesn’t change the fact that the leader of the country, the person who signs off on all the rules and ensured the police had the authority to enforce those rules, broke them himself (more than once). But hey it looks like that doesn’t bother some people and they appear to think the hypocrisy is acceptable?
Also cannot fathom why it the connection to his subsequent lying about it doesn’t make it even worse for some people? I guess I have a different moral compass?
You've lost me now 'impossible to prove' and 'even if most didn't (they did)(sounds like fact)'
And then you go on to put yourself higher than others with your 'moral compass', come on now, you're speaking about empathy which literally means understanding others.
Once again these forums never cease to amaze me. The tactic seems to focus down tight on a single aspect of an issue then argue over minutiae and tangential issues.
My point was anecdotals are impossible to prove. You say most didn’t follow rules and I saw most did. There we go. Neither of us can prove it.
And yes, if someone cannot understand the outrage caused by Johnson’s behaviour then that would indicate a lower morale compass to me as it says those people are not bothered by rules being broken by our rulemakers and lies then being told about it in the highest legislative authority in the land.
Regardless of this lovely set of side arguments...
1. Johnson broke the rules and got caught.
2. Johnson lied about to Parliament.
3. Johnson lied about it to Parliamentary Committee.
4. Committee makes recommendations on sanctions for MPs to vote on.
5. Johnson runs away before facing the music.
No one is arguing about the 5 points you make.
This forum 'never ceases to amaze you' because you're absolutely clouded by your hatred for Johnson, that's fine, you're entitled to it.
Others think differently. It doesn't mean they have no empathy towards people who lost loved ones, which in actual fact is probably quite a few of us.
Or maybe just sit upon your 'moral high horse', that'll probably help the debate.
If being able to see the link behind people’s grief for not being able to be with dying relatives and their anger at Johnson et al breaking the rules, then I am firmly in that saddle. Discretion doesn’t see (or want to see) the link and appeared to completely pooh pooh it. You opted to jump into this discussion which was between me and Discretion, nobody made you!
I initially replied to someone else but your sitting upon your horse so you obviously didn't understand that.
If you want a completely private conversation then maybe take it private, as it stands this is a public forum.
I haven't at any point said I don't see a link. I don't agree that you can't be empathetic towards those people and not care about the parties, that is how this started, then you added in the extra lies etc."You mean the “extra bit about the lies” not “add in the extra lies” as that could be construed as meaning something else yep I can be pedantic too! Those points weren’t added in they were there from the start, I just re-emphasised.
Sorry feisty I think you are missing the point!
I am not saying anyone (including Discretion) does not have empathy for people who lost loved ones or couldn’t say goodbye. Only the most heartless self serving lying narcissist could possibly ever be accused of that. I am clearly talking about not recognising the link between that loss and the anger felt about Johnson et al breaking the rules. Discretion has said does not understand the link, ergo he does not empathise with people who are making that link.
Gotta say the air is indeed pretty thin up here on that saddle | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolute chancer. And speaks volumes about this country that this Eton boy could get to the top job in the country. And yet he was voted for by the million from red wall voters He was popular because of himself not because of a school Sturgeon went to a big standard comprehensive and she turned out to be wonderful didnt she Boris Johnson’s “popularity” and “landslide” is a myth... 2017 Theresa May 42.4% 13,636,624 2019 Boris Johnson 43.6% 13,966,451 Johnson added just 1.2% or 329,767 extra votes It was WHERE he gained votes + FPTP that gave him an 80 seat “landslide”. He wasn’t massively more popular. That’s a myth. I think you are missing the point with these figures... The tories managed to gain win by a margin of 80 seats, taking traditionally held labour strongholds. The figures indicate that a lot of tory voters did not vote, but there was an uplift of labour voters who switched their votes to tory. No not missing the point. What this highlights is the how FPTP works and how the popular vote was not this huge swing to Johnson that everyone claims. In fact if he had been campaigning on a stop Brexit platform I doubt he would have won the election. Although then again he was up against Corbyn so really a mop and bucket could probably have won! Actually none of this shit is Johnson’s fault! It is all Corbyn’s fault
The numbers of voters were near identical.
The tories won 365 seats in 2019 and 317 in 2017.
The tories LOST 13 seats in 2017
The tories GAINED 48 seats in 2019
The tories had 42.4% of votes in 2017
The tories had 43.6% of votes in 2019
This indicates that there was a drop in traditional tory voter voting and labour voters switching their vote to tory.
Agreed so what is your point? Aren’t we just agreeing? There was a bit of swings and roundabouts but because of FPTP Johnson won a big majority. However, his “popularity” is something of a myth! And by your point on traditional Tory voters not voting it seems be was less popular than May with Tory voters and only really won it due to traditional Labour voters who wanted Brexit. So erm aren’t we agreeing?
Yes, my response was to NotMe who seems to suggest that on voters turned to tories en-masse. It’s a myth perpetuated by brexiters.
You are being rather confusing today....
The facts and figures are there for you to digest, if you choose to put a spin on it then fill your boots but don't suggest I have because I have not.....
The facts and figures and analysis of the 2017-2019 elections are freely available online.
Did Labour lose 47 seats to the tories in 2019?
That would be people in those labour constituencies voting tory....
Spin it, go on "I’ve not denied that - I have however stated that the Tory switchers were smaller in number than other labour deserters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
Well personally I think most did follow the rules. So there we are. Impossible to prove beyond personal experience and observation. Maybe I live in a more law abiding area?
Were there minor infringements like going for two walks instead of one? Probably. Did most people have house or garden parties over the xmas period? No. Not in my experience or observation.
And even if most did (they didn’t) it still doesn’t change the fact that the leader of the country, the person who signs off on all the rules and ensured the police had the authority to enforce those rules, broke them himself (more than once). But hey it looks like that doesn’t bother some people and they appear to think the hypocrisy is acceptable?
Also cannot fathom why it the connection to his subsequent lying about it doesn’t make it even worse for some people? I guess I have a different moral compass?
You've lost me now 'impossible to prove' and 'even if most didn't (they did)(sounds like fact)'
And then you go on to put yourself higher than others with your 'moral compass', come on now, you're speaking about empathy which literally means understanding others.
Once again these forums never cease to amaze me. The tactic seems to focus down tight on a single aspect of an issue then argue over minutiae and tangential issues.
My point was anecdotals are impossible to prove. You say most didn’t follow rules and I saw most did. There we go. Neither of us can prove it.
And yes, if someone cannot understand the outrage caused by Johnson’s behaviour then that would indicate a lower morale compass to me as it says those people are not bothered by rules being broken by our rulemakers and lies then being told about it in the highest legislative authority in the land.
Regardless of this lovely set of side arguments...
1. Johnson broke the rules and got caught.
2. Johnson lied about to Parliament.
3. Johnson lied about it to Parliamentary Committee.
4. Committee makes recommendations on sanctions for MPs to vote on.
5. Johnson runs away before facing the music.
No one is arguing about the 5 points you make.
This forum 'never ceases to amaze you' because you're absolutely clouded by your hatred for Johnson, that's fine, you're entitled to it.
Others think differently. It doesn't mean they have no empathy towards people who lost loved ones, which in actual fact is probably quite a few of us.
Or maybe just sit upon your 'moral high horse', that'll probably help the debate.
If being able to see the link behind people’s grief for not being able to be with dying relatives and their anger at Johnson et al breaking the rules, then I am firmly in that saddle. Discretion doesn’t see (or want to see) the link and appeared to completely pooh pooh it. You opted to jump into this discussion which was between me and Discretion, nobody made you!
I initially replied to someone else but your sitting upon your horse so you obviously didn't understand that.
If you want a completely private conversation then maybe take it private, as it stands this is a public forum.
I haven't at any point said I don't see a link. I don't agree that you can't be empathetic towards those people and not care about the parties, that is how this started, then you added in the extra lies etc.
You mean the “extra bit about the lies” not “add in the extra lies” as that could be construed as meaning something else yep I can be pedantic too! Those points weren’t added in they were there from the start, I just re-emphasised.
Sorry feisty I think you are missing the point!
I am not saying anyone (including Discretion) does not have empathy for people who lost loved ones or couldn’t say goodbye. Only the most heartless self serving lying narcissist could possibly ever be accused of that. I am clearly talking about not recognising the link between that loss and the anger felt about Johnson et al breaking the rules. Discretion has said does not understand the link, ergo he does not empathise with people who are making that link.
Gotta say the air is indeed pretty thin up here on that saddle "Was the decision to stop all hospital visits, which meant people were dying alone the wrong decision? Is the evidence that parties took place a springboard to attack the no visitors policy with extra venom? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you have no empathy for people who lost loved ones in terrible situations and were unable to be with them or hold them or even attend the funeral, who may feel rather angry and hurt by the actions of those at the top of govt who made the rules that dictated acceptable behaviour for the masses but ignored themselves. That ok with you? If Boris Johnson had visited his own dying mother, I could understand why people would be upset - he broke a rule that they couldn't. But he didn't do that, he instead had a 'party' in his office. Yes, I agree that's breaking his own rule, but it's a different rule. I just don't see how people can think that Johnson having a party makes their grief at losing a loved one worse. Maybe we just have different experiences of lockdown. My experience was that very few people followed the 'bubble' rules. Every day I saw people meeting up in parks, houses, car parks, etc, and I don't believe that anyone followed all the rules all the time. Should we at least have expected our PM, who makes the tiles, to follow them? Oh I'm not trying to defend him. He was found to have broken the rules, and was fined in accordance with the laws. That's all well and good. All I'm saying here is that I can't understand how Boris having a party makes people feel bad about not being able to be with their dying relative. And it looks like I'm not going to understand, because the poster isn't trying to explain it to me, they're just implying that I must be an awful person for not understanding it.did anyone say feel bad at not seeing their loved ones, rather than feel angry at those who set the rules ? It feels the two sides of the convo aren't discussing the same thing. He was actually accused of having no empathy for people who lost loved ones. To show empathy is to show understanding of another's feelings, I never really understand the 'you're not empathetic' argument because it doesnt even make sense half the time. Finding this all rather bizarre. It appears a lot of people feel very angry towards Johnson for breaking the rules (more than once) and permitting his staff to do the same (more than once) while many (most?) obeyed the rules. Some of those that didn’t got caught and fined (one student who organised a party was fined £10k). Two women who met outside on a park bench with takeaway coffees got fined. Etc. There are loads of stories (inc one in this thread) of people unable to see, hug, or even say goodbye. Yet Discretion doesn’t understand why this would upset people or make them angry
I cannot think of a better word than empathy to indicate whether you can understand why people would be angry or upset by the actions of the leader of our govt. The very person who signed off on the rules. The very person who appeared on daily briefings telling people how they should behave.
And to make it worse, instead of admitting to (several) errors of judgement and saying sorry, he lies. He lies again and again to Parliament, to Parly Committees, and therefore to all of us.
If someone truly cannot understand why that would anger people, then the only logical conclusion is they lack empathy?
I'm sure Discretion can understand the feeling of others and why they may be angry, that doesn't mean he has to agree.
That doesn't show a lack of empathy imo, it just means he doesn't agree.
I think you're exagerrating the 'most followed the rules to the letter', we would all be using anecdotal evidence which could never be proven. Personally, I don't believe 'most followed the rules'.
Well personally I think most did follow the rules. So there we are. Impossible to prove beyond personal experience and observation. Maybe I live in a more law abiding area?
Were there minor infringements like going for two walks instead of one? Probably. Did most people have house or garden parties over the xmas period? No. Not in my experience or observation.
And even if most did (they didn’t) it still doesn’t change the fact that the leader of the country, the person who signs off on all the rules and ensured the police had the authority to enforce those rules, broke them himself (more than once). But hey it looks like that doesn’t bother some people and they appear to think the hypocrisy is acceptable?
Also cannot fathom why it the connection to his subsequent lying about it doesn’t make it even worse for some people? I guess I have a different moral compass?
You've lost me now 'impossible to prove' and 'even if most didn't (they did)(sounds like fact)'
And then you go on to put yourself higher than others with your 'moral compass', come on now, you're speaking about empathy which literally means understanding others.
Once again these forums never cease to amaze me. The tactic seems to focus down tight on a single aspect of an issue then argue over minutiae and tangential issues.
My point was anecdotals are impossible to prove. You say most didn’t follow rules and I saw most did. There we go. Neither of us can prove it.
And yes, if someone cannot understand the outrage caused by Johnson’s behaviour then that would indicate a lower morale compass to me as it says those people are not bothered by rules being broken by our rulemakers and lies then being told about it in the highest legislative authority in the land.
Regardless of this lovely set of side arguments...
1. Johnson broke the rules and got caught.
2. Johnson lied about to Parliament.
3. Johnson lied about it to Parliamentary Committee.
4. Committee makes recommendations on sanctions for MPs to vote on.
5. Johnson runs away before facing the music.
No one is arguing about the 5 points you make.
This forum 'never ceases to amaze you' because you're absolutely clouded by your hatred for Johnson, that's fine, you're entitled to it.
Others think differently. It doesn't mean they have no empathy towards people who lost loved ones, which in actual fact is probably quite a few of us.
Or maybe just sit upon your 'moral high horse', that'll probably help the debate.
If being able to see the link behind people’s grief for not being able to be with dying relatives and their anger at Johnson et al breaking the rules, then I am firmly in that saddle. Discretion doesn’t see (or want to see) the link and appeared to completely pooh pooh it. You opted to jump into this discussion which was between me and Discretion, nobody made you!
I initially replied to someone else but your sitting upon your horse so you obviously didn't understand that.
If you want a completely private conversation then maybe take it private, as it stands this is a public forum.
I haven't at any point said I don't see a link. I don't agree that you can't be empathetic towards those people and not care about the parties, that is how this started, then you added in the extra lies etc.
You mean the “extra bit about the lies” not “add in the extra lies” as that could be construed as meaning something else yep I can be pedantic too! Those points weren’t added in they were there from the start, I just re-emphasised.
Sorry feisty I think you are missing the point!
I am not saying anyone (including Discretion) does not have empathy for people who lost loved ones or couldn’t say goodbye. Only the most heartless self serving lying narcissist could possibly ever be accused of that. I am clearly talking about not recognising the link between that loss and the anger felt about Johnson et al breaking the rules. Discretion has said does not understand the link, ergo he does not empathise with people who are making that link.
Gotta say the air is indeed pretty thin up here on that saddle "I don't think I am missing the point. I've stayed firmly on the 'empathy' point. Of course it's a travesty that people couldn't visit their loved ones. Discretion pointed out that the link between that and Boris having a 'party' was conflated. He stated that Boris didn't visit a loved one. No one has tried to explain it, just 'if you can't see the link, you have no empathy'. I think the air being thin up their has clouded what eyesight and you haven't been able to read. As I stated earlier, empathy is about seeing others POV, at no point have you stopped to think about anyone's POV other than those who agree with you. It's a shame but I guess it is what it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
