Boris Johnson

Three of the four Conservative MPs on the committee, which has the same membership as the one considering Johnson’s fate, voted against the 30 days given to Margaret Ferrier. They wanted nine days.

I will be very disappointed in the Priviledges Committee if they are prepared to plea-bargain with Johnson.

In recent years the select committee system has been the only part of our so-called "democracy" which has actully been effective

Grantanow

Recent reports from BoJo's 'allies' suggest he's looking for a plea bargain to avoid a by-election. The Privileges Committee should not engage in plea bargaining but arrive at a decision and recommendation based on the evidence alone.

Yes. I saw, in the Financial Times, I think, a story that said he'd be prepared to accept a Privileges Comm. verdict of 'recklessly misleading the House', but not one of 'knowingly' misleading. Which, the FT points out, amounts to an admission of guilt... But, as you say, Grantanow, the PC shouldn't be engaging in plea bargaining...

nanna8

I go on mumsnet sometimes and there are certainly a lot of immature and rude people there but equally there are sensible people. Just like any other chat site.

It's much funnier than Gransnet, though!!

Has he given up on the NATO job now then?

Recent reports from BoJo's 'allies' suggest he's looking for a plea bargain to avoid a by-election. The Privileges Committee should not engage in plea bargaining but arrive at a decision and recommendation based on the evidence alone.

I go on mumsnet sometimes and there are certainly a lot of immature and rude people there but equally there are sensible people. Just like any other chat site.

followed it not furrowed it.

Parsley3

Some people were not given the opportunity to break the rules. In the end it may well be found that Johnson did not deliberately mislead the House but he will still be morally reprehensible.

Like the pix.

I've furrowed it all closely.
of course he mislead the house.

Anyone with any integrity would have come clean about exactly what took place and when from the outset and allowed the house to make decisions right there and then, but he wriggled, lied, admitted a bit, blamed others..and so on..I hate to be so direct but the sooner he is out of politics the better because his sort only care for personal egotistical power.

Some people were not given the opportunity to break the rules. In the end it may well be found that Johnson did not deliberately mislead the House but he will still be morally reprehensible.

Oreo

Dickens if you go on Mumsnet you’ll never get off it😁
I limit forum time to sitting and having a cuppa otherwise I’d never get go work, do child care or anything around the house.

I limit forum time to sitting and having a cuppa...

But - I have an awful lot of 'cuppas' throughout the day .

I have the feeling (you've more or less confirmed it) - that I'll become addicted!

Dickens if you go on Mumsnet you’ll never get off it😁
I limit forum time to sitting and having a cuppa otherwise I’d never get go work, do child care or anything around the house.

Monica
I agree with every word in your last post, and have constantly said Boris and others in top jobs were totally wrong.

Iam64

Many gransnet members are also on mumsnet. I enjoy it.

I think I must take a look at MN!

But, oh my goodness - you can spend SO much time on social media, and then discover that the day has gone and your to-do list has not diminished.

I'm so undisciplined - but it's very compelling!

To be fair to Oreo, they weren't the only person who mentioned lots of other people breaking the rules, it's just that the others who did mention it didn't defend their corners.

Oreo It doesn't matter if all the population broke the rules. The simple fact is that those that set the rules must obey them.

The Rule of Law that governs our whole society is based in having rules that everyone obeys and if you break the rules you are punished. In particular those who make the laws and impose them are expected to stick to the rules and to be punished more harshly if they transgress.

Isn't the above the reason that there is so much uproar about the extent of criminal behaviour, racism, homophobia and mysoginism in the police? The purpose of the police is to impose the law and deal with those who break it, therefore we expect them to be meticulous in obeying the law themselves and ensuring that anyone who breaches the norms in their private as well as public behaviour is ejected.

Exactly the same rules apply to people in other walks of life where they set rules and expect other people to obey them. If you break the rules you set, then if you break them you must expect to have the book thrown at you.

Many gransnet members are also on mumsnet. I enjoy it.

Oreo

MayBee70

Oreo

Tell you what, don’t go on Mumsnet, you wouldn’t like it.

Why? Are they all like you?

Younger and tell it like it is, yup.

I love mumsnet. No beating about the bush and pearl clutching.

Dickens I can agree with you about Boris for sure.

MayBee70

Oreo

Tell you what, don’t go on Mumsnet, you wouldn’t like it.

Why? Are they all like you?

Younger and tell it like it is, yup.

Oreo

MaizieD

It wasn't the fact that there were rule breakers. I have no doubt at all that there were. It was the implication that there was a huge number of rule breakers.

If there had been 1million rule breakers it would have been about 1% of the UK population. Sounds like a lot, numerically, but not a very significant percentage.

Here you are with your percentages again.
A few posters can’t deal with the fact that many people broke lockdown rules. It’s interesting.

... well I can deal with the fact that there were rule-breakers. In fact, I wasn't even surprised - it was inevitable. Some broke the rules fleetingly others did so majorly. However, the majority didn't.

But, I don't believe it has much relevance to Johnson being questioned by the committee. Because - as has been re-iterated so many times - Johnson imposed the rules and by any standard would, surely, be expected to abide by them himself?
Instead of 'coming clean' and holding his hands up when the parties came to light, he obfuscated, bluffed, and lied. He did what appears to come naturally to him - attempted to absolve himself expecting to be indulged and accommodated. So the question arose - did he deliberately mislead Parliament? And that is the point at which we're at - it's gone beyond whether he had a glass or half glass of wine and a piece of cake. He held the highest position in government, broke his own rules and led Parliament on a merry-dance, obscuring events, garbling, befogging and generally muddying the waters in his usual blustering way. His performance is an insult to the average intelligent voter. Especially those that value integrity and honesty in government. Without those qualities, democracy doesn't stand a chance.
So at this point, I don't think it matters that some people breached the rules - they are not in power, they are not in government and they are not making decisions, rules, policies, that affect the whole nation.
Personally, I think the man is a danger to democracy, he doesn't respect it, thwarts it if it doesn't allow him free rein, and tries to ride roughshod over anyone who attempts to hold him to account.

Oreo

Tell you what, don’t go on Mumsnet, you wouldn’t like it.

Why? Are they all like you?

Oreo

Tell you what, don’t go on Mumsnet, you wouldn’t like it.

You're making a lot of assumptions about other posters, Oreo

How do you know we're not all on there already?

😂

MaizieD

It wasn't the fact that there were rule breakers. I have no doubt at all that there were. It was the implication that there was a huge number of rule breakers.

If there had been 1million rule breakers it would have been about 1% of the UK population. Sounds like a lot, numerically, but not a very significant percentage.

Here you are with your percentages again.
A few posters can’t deal with the fact that many people broke lockdown rules. It’s interesting.

Tell you what, don’t go on Mumsnet, you wouldn’t like it.