Mailwatch(ed) Forum

See if I can get this straight, Johnson was the only guy who could win over the red wall, but it's the red wall MPs, along with the 2015 ministers (which I guess means David Davies and Andrew Mitchell) and the "toadies" (um, anyone working with Sunak?) who are all traitors?

What a fucking deluded bunch of cunts.

Too perfect

Apparently the bombshell dossier is simply some whatsapp messages from ministers and civil servants which support Johnson's claims that the social gatherings didn't not break the rules. I think the slight problem with this defence is that thousands of messages were deleted so to cherry pick a few dozen messages that support your case doesn't really cut mustard.

His entire ‘legal’ defence seems to be he was too stupid to realise something he was told wasn’t right (and probably asked to be told, with clear inference what should be said), and too weak to make his own mind up.

Quite the risky strategy given he’s decided to throw his team under the bus, having already thrown them under a previous bus by letting them pay the lion’s share of all the fines.

I think he’s fucked, and I think he’s going to be in a foul mood on Wednesday and fingers crossed he fucks up.

Whatever the result it won't make any difference because he's done nothing wrong and anyone who says so is an Establishment remoaner.

You mean that whatever the outcome he's won the argument?

Whatever the outcome he'll behave as though nothing has happened and his fan club will see him as a martyr.

To the majority he is a lying shit bag to his fan base he is a saint who can do nothing wrong the defence that he is incredibly thick won’t change minds.

Johnson could declare himself a Freeman of the Land and tell the committee no statute law applies to him. That’s where most of his dwindling supporters’ heads are at.

I've witnessed enough establishment closing ranks to have little faith of anything getting done here.
I'd love to be proved wrong in this instance.
I expect the guy who drove a bus through rules designed for decent chaps doing decent work to ... Err...

Drive another bus through rules designed for decent chaps doing decent work.
Lord Panick's chambers trouser a substantial wedge of tax money.
Funtime Boris (of Ruislip and Neverland) waddles off to a life on the lecture circuit (specialist subject Peppa Pig).


In the unlikely event of the system "growing a set" and issuing any meaningful sanction, I'll be delighted.
Unlike Stephen Milligan, I won't be holding my breath.

If Truss were in No. 10, I’d be minded to agree, as she’d derail it. But Sunak and any non-Boris Tories know that they have to bury Johnson at this opportunity or be forever dogged by him and his imbecile fanclub.

Johnson may want to drive a bus through the rules. But he’s no longer the bus driver - if he was, we wouldn’t even be anywhere near here. If he wasn’t worried, we wouldn’t have had the desperate far-too-soon ‘test the water’ run at replacing Truss so he could shut down the inquiry when back in No. 10. We also wouldn’t have a ton of expensive lawyers for an ‘exoneration’ issue, because that strength of evidence doesn’t need hundreds of thousands of pounds of legal advice and skill, whereas trying to pass off flimsy rubbish as something substantial does.

Johnson loathes scrutiny, being held to account and being reminded he is not special and above the rules, and here he is being scrutinised, held to account and being shown to be governed by the same rules as everyone else. I think he knows he’s actually in trouble this time, and can’t even send someone out to face the music for him.

What predetermined view might that be, that Johnson is a lying piece of shit? I hope Harriet carries out her duties professionally when the committee is heading for conclusions different to her own. In this case I doubt that dilemma will arise.

A key ally of Boris Johnson has claimed that “some members” of the cross-party privileges committee have a “predetermined view” of the former PM ahead of their public clash later this week.

Speaking to the BBC’s Westminster Hour programme, Mr Burns said: “Now, the concern that some of us have is that it appears that some members of that committee have predetermined their view. I have real reservations.

“I rate Harriet Harman highly but she did tweet in April 2022 that if the prime minister, the former prime minister, the now Prime Minister, the former chancellor, admit guilt by which she said was accepting a fixed penalty notice then they are also admitting that they misled the House of Commons.

“Boris Johnson contests that but it seems to me the person who is now chairing this committee has predetermined that and that causes me a degree of anxiety for parliament’s reputation in handling this with integrity”. https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2023/03 ... aims-ally/

I'm no lawyer, but what I've read about the "bombshell" defence strikes me as very much man in the pub, coppers can't nick you if they're not wearing a helmet, refuse everything except a piss sample, keep a bottle in your pocket stuff.

Bombshell in not bombshell but thing already known shocker.

If this is the best they’ve come up with, whoever Boris borrowed Pannick’s fee from should ask for a refund.

With regards to point (v)

That cunt has never acted in good faith in his life.

Isn't it enquiry? Not "Inquiry".

And how the fuck is it illegal?

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:57 am Bombshell in not bombshell but thing already known shocker.

If this is the best they’ve come up with, whoever Boris borrowed Pannick’s fee from should ask for a refund.

Hasn’t the fat, lazy, slob borrowed Pannick’s fee from us, the taxpayer?

Yes, I think my intended joke was probably a bit *too* subtle!

Abernathy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:26 am Isn't it enquiry? Not "Inquiry".

And how the fuck is it illegal?

Enquiry and inquiry are variant spellings, though the latter is now becoming the preferred. One of those odd ones where people assume we’re adopting the American (i rather than e) when actually they just kept what we used to use and now we’re changing back.

I think there is more than enough evidence to show that Johnson did knowingly mislead parliament but I think the real wrangling will be over his punishment. If there is an attempt to boot him out of parliament government ministers will probably vote against such a move because they really don't want any by-elections anytime soon. On the other hand a three day suspension would be harsh enough to kill off his plans of making a quick return as party leader or PM. The only MPs who would vote against a 3 day suspension would be the 100 odd MPs who were prepared to nominate Johnson when Truss resigned.