Strong Sense of Duty or a Chequers Wedding Anniversary Party

Doodledog

Regardless of whether politicians are in office, I don't think that personal celebrations should be payrolled by the public, and even more so when so many children are going without hot food in the holidays and people are struggling to pay bills. I can't imagine that the celebrations will be limited to a disco with a few sausage rolls and a trifle, either.

Fair enough if there is a celebration to welcome a visiting dignitary, or a state occasion, but personal matters should be hosted and funded personally.

I agree with you completely. Celebrations should always be paid for the hosts, not the country, whoever the person is.

lemsip

Maddyone your sentence saying

.......... * Well I suppose if he murdered his wife, or set a bomb in Downing street* .

................................is tasteless

It’s tasteless to you because you dislike the fact that BJ is continuing to act as caretaker PM. I have pointed out that it is the normal protocol, you don’t like it. I’m neither defending nor attacking BJ, just simply stating a fact.

Blossoming

I’m puzzled by your puzzlement MaddyOne, you seem remarkably ill informed on all things Johnson.

When the Johnsons married last year the rules only allowed an outdoor gathering of up to 30 people. They have always said they intended to hold a larger party for all their friends (?) this summer.

How rude!

I only found out today that he had his first two marriages annulled so he could get married in a Catholic church. How must his children have felt about that?

Maddyone your sentence saying

.......... * Well I suppose if he murdered his wife, or set a bomb in Downing street* .

................................is tasteless

I’m puzzled by your puzzlement MaddyOne, you seem remarkably ill informed on all things Johnson.

When the Johnsons married last year the rules only allowed an outdoor gathering of up to 30 people. They have always said they intended to hold a larger party for all their friends (?) this summer.

I see Johnson still has a few diehard fans. The reason many people, both in his own party and elsewhere, don’t think he can be allowed to stay on until October is because he presents a very real security risk through his links with, and secret meetings with, Russia. He can still do a great deal of damage.

Regardless of whether politicians are in office, I don't think that personal celebrations should be payrolled by the public, and even more so when so many children are going without hot food in the holidays and people are struggling to pay bills. I can't imagine that the celebrations will be limited to a disco with a few sausage rolls and a trifle, either.

Fair enough if there is a celebration to welcome a visiting dignitary, or a state occasion, but personal matters should be hosted and funded personally.

I’m puzzled Yammy whose wedding are you referring to? It can’t be BJ and Carrie, since they’re already married.

I'm pleased to hear the venue of the wedding has been changed.
Naughty thought, who will be paying for the clothes of all his children if they are chosen as bridesmaids and groomsmen as a lot of people do these days, at a second or third marriage.

Pleased to hear they have decided to have it elsewhere.

I’m glad that it’s now changed to another venue, I mentioned my disapproval on another thread.

Well, perhaps the usual protocol should be more flexible. The PM doesn't seem to be too bothered about protocols...

And as Maizie pointed out, the venue for the anniversary party has already been changed.

Well I suppose if he murdered his wife, or set a bomb in Downing Street he’d be removed immediately (into police custody.) The answer to your query Greta is that protocol dictates the resigning PM becomes a care taking PM until such time as a new leader is appointed. Perhaps you’d like the usual practice to be completely ignored?

”What a ridiculous question. BJ is staying on because that’s what every other PM did, they worked their notice. May, Cameron, Thatcher and so on. When a PM resigns they stay on in a caretaker role until the next leader is chosen and appointed.”

Shouldn't the reason a PM resigns play a part at all? May, Cameron and Thatcher did not leave because of a huge lack of trust in their behaviour (read lying, obfuscating, inability to answer a straightforward question). How can the PM be trusted in any role?

You are right Maddyone but some of the media continue to look for any thing they can criticise Boris for. It has become a bad habit.

mokryna

Is Johnson staying on through the summer because he has a strong sense of duty or because Wedding Anniversary invitations have already been sent out?

This is not his private home, it is said that Chequers costs the taxpayer over £1 million per year to run. Who do you think will pay for this extravaganza?

What a ridiculous question. BJ is staying on because that’s what every other PM did, they worked their notice. May, Cameron, Thatcher and so on. When a PM resigns they stay on in a caretaker role until the next leader is chosen and appointed.

It seems that the Johnsons have rethought their post wedding party plans

A wedding party for Boris Johnson and his wife Carrie will no longer be held at the prime minister's country house following criticism of the venue choice.

Newspaper reports said plans had been made for a party at Chequers in July.

A No 10 source told the BBC "nothing had been 100% firmed up" and an alternative location will now be used.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62092203?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Well, that's a relief.

I always understood that Chequers was intended for the Prime Minister to entertain VIPs from round the world, not for hosting private booze ups for his hangers on. I wonder how long this marriage will survive anyway now he's resigned. I doubt if he's going to be much fun to live with.

He would have to have real brass neck to hold an anniversary party in Chequers paid for with public money. That would take someone with no sense of decency coupled with a massive sense of entitlement.

Oh.

It seems wrong to me that he can do this, in favour or not.
To suggest he is staying on just for this is beyond the pale.

Who do you think will pay for this extravaganza?

Well, that's the question, isn't it?

Will the Johnson's have to pay the full cost of their extravaganza. Or is it coming out of public money, or a donor's pocket?


(P.S. It doesn't cost 'the taxpayer' anything, because taxation just does not fund spending. However, it is public money)