>> 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.
|