Continuing debate
641412
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 18 Jan 22 at 11:42
|
This looks a classy place, the Tories should have booked this.
(tho they would have been caught)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-59982463
|
|
...I'm not sure who's organising Boris's leaving party, but I understand it's going to be a BYOS (Bring Your Own Suitcase) affair.....
|
|
And who said they couldn’t organise a p*** up ;)
|
|
The party while the Queen was mourning filleep alone will be the killer for bojo. Constituency parties are now gunning for him - mess with the queen at your peril
|
What strikes me is the appalling tone-deafness that must have afflicted whole groups of people at No 10.
Did no-one think to say, "Hang on - this party lark might not be in the best taste, given Philip's funeral is tomorrow?"
And did they all have the arrogance to assume no-one would find out - or did they simply not give a ****?
Presumably it was Johnson who set the tone for things like this to happen.
Last edited by: James Loveless on Fri 14 Jan 22 at 19:08
|
They had crossed the line so often by then, routinely lying, channelling millions in public funds to friends, changing or ignoring the rules and refusing to be accountable, that it just went with the territory.
I'm quite sure Johnson doesn't think he has done anything wrong other than getting caught.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 14 Jan 22 at 19:22
|
I would think they were in some sort of mental bubble, where an idea of exceptionalism was front and centre. They set the rules but they were exempt from them, some did flag it up. But there's not always a clear CoC at the centre of gov.
Mind you at this rate, it'll be easier to state which gov depts didn't have 'leaving dos'
|
The BBC hasn't reported this yet. It's on the Independent but that's such an annoying website I haven't linked it.
news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-raising-the-stakes-in-battle-over-boris-johnsons-future-amid-wine-time-fridays-claims-12516320
"Confronted with the mutiny among his MPs and activists, the PM is said to be plotting a fightback to save his premiership, which he is calling Operation Save Big Dog.
His plan is said to include drawing up a list of officials he will ask to offer their resignations and axing Plan B COVID restrictions including COVID passports, masks, and working from home."
|
Since number 10 houses both political and civil service staff there’ll be a few to choose from ;) The Torygraph would certainly agree that the restrictions should be lifted, and the direction of the numbers relative to other nations with stricter restrictions could lead one to a similar conclusion…
www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/15/boris-has-kept-economy-open-recovery-track-matters-drinks/
|
There seems to have been several "gatherings" over the last 22 months - leaving dos, working drinkies in the garden, Xmas parties, etc.
30+ folk attended the alleged BYOB party. ~100 were apparently invited. Quite possibly 100+ attended one or more events. 250+ may have been invited to one or more. Everybody (500++) in the "No 10 estate" must have known they were happening.
Boris is is ultimately responsible for setting the tone - in more normal times making the workplace a fun and sociable place to be can be good for both morale and effectiveness.
Why has it taken so long for anyone to own up. Politicians and advisors would be very aware of the negative impacts on public opinion. Junior staff could be concerned for their jobs.
But very senior officials condoned, organised and even encouraged the behaviours. They should be expected to have the resolve to step in when necessary. They are not elected, have secure jobs and are rewarded with comfortable pensions and the occasional gong.
The public should expect far better from them. The fall out from this needs to be more than the replacement of Boris (if it happens), but a radical review of the role and conditions enjoyed by senior public servants so they are also properly held to account.
|
When everybody's to blame, nobody's to blame or at least not enough to be singled out - is presumably what Johnson is hoping for from Sue Gray. Failing that his second shot is that she will be vague enough for him to find scapegoats, which seems likely if there is no actual memo from Johnson endorsing the part(y)(ies), sorry work event(s).
Actually the inquiry is now redundant. What happened is admitted, we know who was in charge, and we know he knew about it. Were it a jury trial the jury would be probably directed by the judge to a guilty verdict.
I can't wait for Liz Truss to take over.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRhlRM6rYck (yes it's "pork markets")
|
That's got to be a joke surely ????
|
You'd think so wouldn't you but it isn't. It was to the Conservative Party conference in 2014 and widely reported at the time, when she was Secretary of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs....
And she's second favourite behind dishy Rishi to be next PM!!!
|
|
I understand that she's popular with members as she's seen to have done a good job in last couple of posts. It wouldn't surprise me to see her as favourite soon enough.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 16 Jan 22 at 18:02
|
>> That's got to be a joke surely ????
Excruciating isn't it. That alone should be enough to keep her out of the top job unfortunately.
|
Ukraine tension: Foreign Secretary Liz Truss urges Putin to step back
www.bbc.com/news/uk-60078959
Bet that scared him LOL
|
|
I'm not sure she can say much else?
|
It was intended a bit tic (given the video links posted here to her cheese and pork speech), though she doesn't come across to me as someone with statesmanlike gravity.
Mind you, shew wasn't obliged to say anything.
|
Mind you, shew wasn't obliged to say anything.
>>
Disagree there.
|
Anything Bojo does now will be seen as "saving his skin". Any policy or initiative however good and worthy will be seen as an attempt to whitewash his image. Any actions arising from the party enquiries will be seen as "saving his skin"
This is why his position is now untenable. The Brexit fallout and his public image now make him unelectable next time around.
|
|
Sophie Rayworth gave Starmer a bit of a grilling on Andrew Marr this morning. Apparently his gathering - a Chinese and beers amongst his party workers on the run up to the election was not in the same category as Number 10. Ahh that's ok then??
|
Didn't watch Marr - what election?
Last GE was pre-Covid.
|
>> Didn't watch Marr - what election?
Hartlepool byelection.
|
>>Sophie Rayworth gave Starmer a bit of a grilling on Andrew Marr this morning...
Well it's not is it? It was clearly a genuine working session. Pretty fair question though, and Starmer quite rightly dismissed any real comparison with a bottle party to which 100 people were invited.
She was less aggressive with Dowden but TBH he put his hands up and at least three times said it shouldn't have happened. Short of demanding he publicly disembowel himself I don't know what more she could have done. She baited him about the idea of fighting another GE under Johnson when the Scottish MPs are all saying he should resign.
I thought she did a decent job. The producer was also probably trying to balance things up a bit after Piers Organ attacked Johnsonin the press review at the beginning of the programme
|
Harold Wilson is reported to have said "a week is a long time in politics". The next general election is about three years away.
Boris has gone from hero to villain in under two years. In three years this could be reversed - with a following wind - economic growth, Brexit fully sorted and working well, unemployment low, inflation under control after a post pandemic blip etc
This is not a prognosis, but the assertion that "people have long memories and won't forgive him" etc is flawed. People demonstrably have short memories and respond most strongly to the most recent.
In three years the opposition may have swung to the left (losing votes in the process?), Sir Keir may have been succeeded as leader, Scotland may hold another referendum etc etc.
Whether Boris survives the next couple of weeks I haven't a clue - it is in the hands of his MPs. He has nothing to gain by resigning now (except relief from personal stress) - it just crystallises the end of his premiership.
Waiting for the report, ending Covid plan B, fixing the TV licence fee, No 10 clear out, etc may mean that (a) the public get increasingly bored with the story, and (b) there is sufficiently good news that Boris never need resign.
Senior politicians (in all parties) are ambitious, driven, very resilient. They do not roll over easily - if they did so they would never have risen to the position they have.
His strengths when elected as party leader - very effective communicator, positive, articulate speaker, promised Brexit and gets a tick in the box (however flawed the arrangement).
Almost no one would have elected him for his towering intellect and reputation for complete integrity. We got what we voted for - we just no longer want it.
|
The local elections are in May this year. Should be interesting.
I've ordered the popcorn.
|
Cummings has sent in a torpedo.
dominiccummings.substack.com/p/parties-photos-trolleys-variants
Basically, the PPS who sent out the invitations for 20 May was told it was against the rules, but he and Johnson ignored the concerns, it is alleged.
|
This is the man who:
- went for a drive with his wife and child during lockdown to test his eyesight,
- created the selective but truthful, or just plain dishonest "get Brexit done" campaign
- was a key architect of Tory manifesto and election victory
- was an integral part of the senior No10 team until fired.
He is not a credible witness to anything. He is motivated only by an almost obsessive desire to get even with Boris - the man who eventually had to fire him.
Perhaps, being so virtuous an individual, he never attended a "gathering". Or maybe just the "gatherings" that were work meetings. Or maybe he went but never imbibed. Objective truth and Cummings are strangers.
|
My enemy's enemy is my friend. Cummings is undoubtedly very clever, very motivated, and capable of being extremely unpleasant, but on this I find him credible - partly I think because the partygoers are so clearly dissembling for England.
Cummings is dripping this out, and nobody is quite sure how much more he has got. He has pointed Gray at certain people who will be very wary of lying when challenged for fear of what else is out there.
Hilariously, the Daily Mail has come out with an editorial to the effect that poor Boris should be left alone.
The Daily Mail's leader attempts to draw a line under the so-called Partygate scandal. It says "enough is enough", claiming the ongoing coverage is causing "a thumping hangover - without having had the fun of going to the parties".
Cummings has chosen his moment carefully. The dominoes are wobbling already and once Johnson is seen to be done for there will be plenty of corroboration unless Cummings really has made it up.
|
>> This is the man who:
>>
>> - went for a drive with his wife and child during lockdown to test his
>> eyesight,
>> - created the selective but truthful, or just plain dishonest "get Brexit done" campaign
>> - was a key architect of Tory manifesto and election victory
>> - was an integral part of the senior No10 team until fired.
>>
...If you're going to apply "selective analytical logic" like this, just do similar for Boris......
.....you'll come to inevitable conclusion that he's lying. ;-)
|
Agreed, I read the whole of the Cummings blog link and if you ignore his judgements that he repeats that he is innocent and others are guilty I think he raises some good and potentially true points - like having meetings outside in the garden was IMO the right thing to be doing in the daytime.
Even though he has a few axes to grind, and he has shown himself to be unreliable when it suits him - I think he is mostly quite credible - but then I did last time he released a load of stuff but I don't think many agreed.... but then I've been anti-Boris for some time.
The one thing I find a little odd is how, in my line of business at least, drinking in the office and in the workday) was very much banned from maybe the late 80s - even to the point of no longer being able to have a Christmas drink on the premises on the day we broke up - yet no-one in the press has mentioned it as being unusual to my knowledge. I would have thought the Civil Service would have had the same sorts of rules. (Now I've typed that I feel someone may have already mentioned it - maybe even me!! - sorry if it's a repeat!!)
|
>> I would
>> have thought the Civil Service would have had the same sorts of rules. (Now I've
>> typed that I feel someone may have already mentioned it - maybe even me!! -
>> sorry if it's a repeat!!)
I may have mentioned it but I was a Civil Servant from 1978 until 2013.
Initially I worked in a provincial County Court where, excepting Xmas and my leaving do, drink was not taken in the office. Neither were there lunchtime sessions in the pub.
Moving to London and the administrative offices of a judicial tribunal it was completely different. Pub 'sessions' ending when the pubs closed at 3pm were a regular Friday thing. The Grade 7 head of office kept a drinks cabinet and would offer Scotch if you had a meeting after 11am. At least two folks were functioning alcoholics though one drank to self medicate PTSD from the war.
The culture started to change in the nineties. People who came back from the pub well beyond merry were sent home and were at risk of being 'managed out' if referrals to Occupational Health were refused/ineffective. However, as late a 2002 wine was served with the buffet lunch provided to Quango members at monthly meetings. At 'Awaydays' and such like a reasonable quantity, usually interpreted as half a bottle of wine per person, could be provided at public expense.
If not ended before that stopped with the 'shock and awe' regime of austerity post 2010.
I think alcohol was banned altogether by the time I was made redundant but a Nelsonian eye was turned from time to time at least in smaller self contained offices.
There was a phase from the mid eighties on where central control was eased and HR policies etc delegated to departments and agencies; what was banned in DWP might not be in (say) the MoD.
I suspect Number 10, and Ministerial Private Offices, were a bit different to the mainstream court office or Job Centre.
It's been suggested now that No 10 may adopt a no drink rule but it will be interesting to see how effective it is if the incumbent PM decides to make 'exceptions'.
|
> The one thing I find a little odd is how, in my line of business
>> at least, drinking in the office and in the workday) was very much banned from
>> maybe the late 80s - even to the point of no longer being able to
>> have a Christmas drink on the premises on the day we broke up - yet
>> no-one in the press has mentioned it as being unusual to my knowledge. I would
>> have thought the Civil Service would have had the same sorts of rules. (Now I've
>> typed that I feel someone may have already mentioned it - maybe even me!! -
>> sorry if it's a repeat!!)
>
I would imagine the press don't mention it as its still a massive part of their day to day lives,especially those that cover Westminster.
'The civil service ' is a big beast, let alone the public sector* lots of different cultures there. Although its reducing in society in general, especially amongst the young, there's still a work hard play hard type of culture where coming in with a hangover, summer BBQs, work dos are all accompanied with alcohol is still in place .
|
Since I stopped drinking I have to remind myself not to develop a sanctimonious attitude to it. Once, I would happily chuck 3 or 4 pints of foaming bumpers down my neck if there was a decent session beer on tap and I didn't have to drive.
However I do think that when infection control matters, tipsiness probably has an big accelerant effect on spreading and isn't a good idea. From experience and observation, after-work drinking in London with rail commuters commonly involves surprising quantities of booze so even if it was customary in normal times it probably wasn't a great idea in the middle of a pandemic.
|
I worked in the private sector for ~20 years until 1991, and the public sector for a similar length until retirement. Bromptonaut's description of the culture change over the period is spot on.
In the 1980s Friday afternoons were working meetings in the pub over a few/several pints and back to the office by 4pm for a coffee. Business lunches were often 3 hours with copious alcohol - beer, wine, "stickies".
Public sector initially had the late Friday single malt club, and wine fuelled awaydays. These started to disappear from around 2000 due to anxiety over negative perceptions should it become public knowledge.
Incidentally I have no more faith in Boris's account of what happened than Cummings - both are manipulative opportunists who have demonstrated a complete lack of integrity in the past.
I am just very wary of condemning anyone in the absence of an objective account of what actually occurred, irrespective of their politics. Hopefully Sue Gray who seems well regarded by both sides will provide this.
|
>> I am just very wary of condemning anyone in the absence of an objective account
>> of what actually occurred, irrespective of their politics.
Good luck with finding anybody objective who knows what went on. Sue Gray was appointed by Johnson wasn't she?
I don't think we need worry about a miscarriage of justice where Johnson is concerned. I'm not suggesting a lynching, merely that he stops being Prime Minister and soon. He was demonstrably dishonest well before he was PM (which poses the question of why his party put him where he is, and suggests it too is rotten) and has provided us with plenty of evidence of his character. Ian Birrell in the 'i' yesterday didn't prevaricate, calling BJ a "scoundrel and a scumbag".
inews.co.uk/opinion/yes-boris-johnson-should-resign-but-why-does-our-system-give-us-such-inadequate-prime-ministers-1404686
>>Hopefully Sue Gray who seems well regarded
>> by both sides will provide [an objective account].
Hopefully, yes but I'm not holding my breath. I expect it will be factual but reserve judgement. The Tories who cling to "wait for the report" hope that the bare 'facts' will be laid out without any blame being laid, at least not on BJ. If that is the case then nothing changes - we already know the dates of the rule breaking, which are admitted.
There are decent Conservative MPs I believe. Some have resigned (my erstwhile MP David Gauke went up in my estimation when he put his head above the parapet). Grieve was deselected, but his constituency who got rid of him has reportedly asked if he will apply for readoption. Presumably those MPs who remain and are silent are hoping for the PM to go without the risk to their positions of speaking out.
|
It appears that in some quarters Johnson is likened to a Big Dog.
Those opposed to him are said to be using the phrase Operation Rinka...
www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/18/operation-rinka-rebel-tories-up-pressure-on-boris-johnson-to-resign-downing-street-parties
|
|
Operation Rinka? The mind boggles, which dullard i wonder came up with that.
|
>> Operation Rinka? The mind boggles, which dullard i wonder came up with that.
The reference says something of both the age and sense of humour of the person who came up with it.
|
|
Oh I'm sure you're right about that...
|
Shoot the Big Dog? Quite witty by my standards!
I know I felt sorrier for Rinka than I did for Jeremy Thorpe.
|
|
Last I heard it was being run past lawyers and HR advisers??
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60166997
Looks like we'll all be waiting a bit yet.
|
|
OFFS, What the hell is that dick Cressida doing sticking her nose in.
|
>> OFFS, What the hell is that dick Cressida doing sticking her nose in.
>>
Yeah, quite right, what have potentially criminal offences got to do with the police?
|
>> >> OFFS, What the hell is that dick Cressida doing sticking her nose in.
>> >>
>>
>> Yeah, quite right, what have potentially criminal offences got to do with the police?
Its not a criminal offence, and has a fixed charge penalty. There is a thing called The Public Interest, and the Met are supposed to be part of the platform for achieving it.
They aint,
|
I suspect Ms Dick has now involved the Met in an official capacity having realised the Ms Gray's evidence of "Summary Offences" was at least in part gleaned from interviewing Met officers. (Apocryphally, it was).
An official position of wanting to ignore the whole thing rapidly changes when it is obvious that Met personnel were aware, kept quiet and/or were told to at the time, and it is rather less embarrassing to bury some of that, and belatedly take over any process.
|
I suspect when it is published there will be liberal use of the black felt-tipped pen which will only make things worse...
Met are now asking for certain parts to be removed.
|
>> I suspect when it is published there will be liberal use of the black felt-tipped
>> pen which will only make things worse...
>>
>> Met are now asking for certain parts to be removed.
The bits that incriminate the Met, presumably, e.g any that suggests they knew of illegality and did nothing.
|
>> >> Met are now asking for certain parts to be removed.
>>
>> The bits that incriminate the Met, presumably, e.g any that suggests they knew of illegality
>> and did nothing.
>>
Like the Met officers ignoring staff turn up with bottles in hand or in off-licence bags?
|
>> I suspect Ms Dick has now involved the Met in an official capacity
And all she has achieved is to politicise the police and be accused as part of the cover up even if there isnt one.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 28 Jan 22 at 10:09
|
I understand that:
- if the alleged "crimes" committed are subject to fixed penalty notices, they would not be compromised by publishing the SG report.
- if a criminal trial, the prosecution may be undermined if the report is published
Seems there is a choice:
- publish and risk their being no prosecution if it is evident crimes have been committed
- wait indefinitely for the police to complete their investigations
- publish a heavily redacted reeport
IMHO the whole issue is a corrosive distraction. The Sue Gray report should be published in full and quickly. Tory MPs can make their own judgement about Boris and act accordingly.
The fundamental principles of justice should not be ignored by a desire to "get Boris". Folk need to decide whether to:
- delay, a full police investigation, and charges brought if appropriate
- publish now which will lead to a political, not legal solution
I would favour the latter!
|
>>Its not a criminal offence, and has a fixed charge penalty.
Might be sniffing around www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-public-office ?
|
...I think that's probably too great a leap in connection with this particular report, but, given the "facts" that have been published in the media so far, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice might be a possibility.
(The "clean up your 'phones and emails" instruction rumours, for example)
|
I get the impression they'll try to brazen it out regardless of what's in the report on the basis that it will all blow over and Johnson will regain his popularity.
I do hope they make Truss the leader. What an orator. She was positively Churchillian on the subjects of pork markets and cheese.
|
Hope Sue Gray tells the Police to jog on - they failed to act upon earlier requests to investigate so they can suck it up.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60177028
It would appear that is what's happening. But there may be some more twists and turns yet.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 28 Jan 22 at 20:36
|
|
If there are redactions I hope somebody leaks the full document to the press. I doubt if plod has any intention of prosecuting anyone if they can possibly avoid it.
|
Would Sue Gray's early published report potentially prejudice the disposal outcomes of a Police investigation therefore making the process unfair and a get out for the police?
Having said that its all getting rather wearisome, petty and childish.
|
If what gets published in the next day or so is heavily redacted, this may backfire on Boris.
Many Tory MPs are already unhappy with the handling of Partygate and reporting delays. They are holding fire as they would prefer not to assume him guilty in the absence of evidence.
If it is perceived (fairly or otherwise) that No 10 are responsible for getting the police involved to create delay and muddy the waters, the tolerance of his MPs may be at an end.
Clarity to bring the whole charade to a conclusion quickly is of far greater consequence than a few trivial fines issued in respect of something that happened 12-24 months ago.
It is now a running sore, and well past the point where delay will save his bacon. It is only a prompt report which largely exonerates him (probably unlikely) that will do otherwise.
|
He's damaged goods, his international reputation must be subterranean, and unless Germany invades Poland and he takes up Romeo y Julietas before saving Europe his place in history will be as a dud, in the same chapter as King John.
But a narcissist like Johnson will be the last to accept this cf. Trump; and his followers, much like Trump's did, seem to have weighed the benefits of staying under his protection against what they presumably think is the low risk of being permanently damaged themselves if it doesn't work out.
I don't think he's coming back from this but I'm not sure it's penetrated his delusion of adequacy.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 29 Jan 22 at 06:53
|
|
I think it's best for all considered to publish it, it doesn't seem to be in anyone's (bar the met police) interest to keep this under wraps. Lets hope its monday and get it sorted one way or the other.
|
I assumed after Monday's statement when he accused Starmer of doing nothing except prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Savile, that it was just bad tempered nastiness from a nasty PM as he had no acceptable answers; typical of malignant narcissists.
But it turns out it was a prepared answer. It was in his 'script', he was advised not to say it, and he ignored the advice. Again true to type
Contemptible. As are the self-interested crawlers who excused it. Very similar to Trump and senior Republicans.
His opening remarks on Monday, and very non-personal apology were equally shameful. "We" failed, but "I" will fix it.
It was reported that, in his plea to his MP's for support afterwards, he compared himself with Othello, who "also trusted his friends too much". So he's not to blame at all, he's a victim!
He blames his opponents for wasting time on parties when the country is at a critical juncture. Yet it was he who cancelled his much touted conversation with Putin to beg for his MP's support.
What a despicable excuse for a man. I do hope they go for Truss.
|
>> What a despicable excuse for a man.
He is everything I warned everyone on here about when he was elected.
|
>> He is everything I warned everyone on here about when he was elected.
To the leadership? I'd say he's exceeded even your expectations. He's certainly exceeded mine, and not in a good way.
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=27017&v=f
|
|
....given all the dissembling going on by Bojo's cronies now the fixed penalties have hit the fan, I wonder how long it will be before one of them declares "There were no parties, only special political operations"......
|
But not by Johnson.
His policy adviser since his mayoral days has dumped him over the Starmer smear. Another 4 have gone.
I expect he will characterise this as being part of his promised shake-up.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60253231
It has not been edifying listening to the creeps justifying Johnson's remarks on the Savile comment, James Cleverley justifying it made me fit to boak.
|
>> It has not been edifying listening to the creeps justifying Johnson's remarks on the Savile
>> comment, James Cleverley justifying it made me fit to boak.
Not a new joke but Cleverley is the antithesis of nominative determinism.
Apart from the tone of the remark at the dispatch box if BoJo had intended it to be a comparison with Starmer taking an organisation rap as DPP he wouldn't have mentioned prosecuting journalists.
|
Who knows what the truth is - some/all:
- are fed up with Boris,
- were complicit in Partygate and under police investigation
- can see the writing on the wall and are leaving a sinking ship
- were "encouraged" to resign as part of the promised shake up
We don't know - that those involved are entirely capable of massaging the truth.
|
>> We don't know - that those involved are entirely capable of massaging the truth.
You're right, we don't. What we do know is that if we want to know the truth, it's no good looking to Johnson.
|
|
He’s toast. Not a matter of “if” but “when” The Conservative part are notoriously brutal about getting rid of their leaders once they are past their “sell by” date .
|
>> It has not been edifying listening to the creeps justifying Johnson's remarks on the Savile
>> comment, James Cleverley justifying it made me fit to boak.
Nadine Dorries was pushing the same line on the Today programme this morning.
|
>Nadine Dorries was pushing the same line on the Today programme this morning.
She'd better be careful. The abomination called the 'Online Safety' Bill she's trying to push through could see her boss jailed for 5 years.
|
Or a shuffle as it should be called, is imminent. I wonder if he'll shoot Sunak and Javid, I wouldn't think so, he was clearly barrel scraping with Dorries.
I see Johnson has a not inconsiderable bald patch now.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60305006
|
|
He stinks of rotten fish, is just as slippery, and has a similar shelf life.
|
New Chief Whip Heaton-Harris is my MP.
Useless hard line die in a ditch Brexiteer.
Seeing him kebabbed at a Committee by the estimable Jo Cherry QC over non existent ferries was very funny indeed.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 8 Feb 22 at 14:05
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60321890
Here the reporter seems to think well of CHH, never heard of him personally. Not the first place I've seen him thought fairly well.
|
|
...I see everything is now fine....... (or something like that)
|
|
Is he embarrassed because of the actual groping or because of who he was groping?
|
Tories taking the p now. - Zero
