Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:15 pm Yes, I think my intended joke was probably a bit *too* subtle!

D’oh!

satnav wrote: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.

That's if there ever were as many as a hundred. It'd be interesting to see how few they really were.

I'm old enough to remember when these venal cunts were so thin on the ground that we used to be able to find the bandwidth to discuss finer points of policy, along with the evils (and the utter stupidity) of the toxic press.

Happy days.

Bozo’s in big trouble if Murdoch’s allowing his drones to help toss him over the side.

Apparently the version sent yesterday afternoon was full of typos and errors, which absolutely *screams* ‘here is a rock-solid, well thought out and reasoned defence based on good evidence, and not some hastily thrown-together whataboutery and excuses that I had to get going on when it became clear I wasn’t going to be able to derail the whole thing’…

So, all that money and time and 50 pages and it boils down to:

*Nobody told me they were parties and I was unable to work this out for myself

*This is all a witch hunt

*The photos of me doing bad things show me in a bad light

*You don’t have a document that says “this is illegal” therefore I didn’t know

*I corrected the record at a time that I thought was the earliest, but wasn’t, but I thought it was because LOOK OVER THERE!!

That’s literally it. 200 grand and a top lawyer and all he’s got to cover himself is the feeble get-out clause that he can’t tell what a party is.

I do not remember saying the words quoted by [No. 10 official] – and it seems unlikely given that it was, as [No. 10 official] says, a small and impromptu event. But I might well have made observations in speeches about social distancing, and whether it was being perfectly observed. That does not mean that I thought the guidance was contravened. As I have already explained, I did not believe that the guidance required full social distancing at all times provided you did what you could overall, and put additional mitigations in place where social distancing was not possible.

What does "doing what you could overall" mean? Surely it would mean full social distancing at all times.

You don't have to be, to use a random example, David Pannick QC, to see an opening for the prosecution here.

Scanning social media, I would suggest aside from the frothing cheerleaders the general feeling is - and among objective types, not just commentators sick of the Tories - a sense of absolute disbelief that this honking pile of dogshit is the best he could do, and he’s fucking toast.

We remain in hope.

Have we had a sob from Team GoNad yet?

It reeks of Arlene Foster's claim of "accountable but not responsible" in the Cash for Ash enquiry. Very similar grades of brass necks involved in both.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... dApp_Other

Marina Hyde, as great as ever. Just read it.

Watchman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 2:52 pm Have we had a sob from Team GoNad yet?

Spoonman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:17 pm It reeks of Arlene Foster's claim of "accountable but not responsible" in the Cash for Ash enquiry. Very similar grades of brass necks involved in both.

It also seems to be from the Darren Grimes "too thick to fill in a form properly" school.

Byline are hardly Boris fans, but this is an absolute dismantling.

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/03/21/bori ... n-defence/

The text is riddled with basic errors of grammar and fact. For example, in one particularly confusing section the former Prime Minister claims to have spoken to officials about what had occurred at an event that was then still in the future.

Basically, not the sort of document you would want a KC and former DPP having a look at, if you were relying on it in court

I think it’s amazing that a KC and a diplomat already have looked at it, and this is the state it’s in now.

It’s like hiring a famously excellent interior designer to work on your house, but it’s so shit the best they can do is paint everything white and hope no one notices the walls are made of cow dung and corrugated card.

(Edit: incidentally, I have just found out he was first asked to submit his statement in July last year. So this really is last minute back of the fag packet desperate)

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:47 pm

Watchman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 2:52 pm Have we had a sob from Team GoNad yet?

Amazing how the lying liar's bigliest fan managed to link to a shiterag notorious for being economical with the truth.

I know I just said Cummings was an unreliable loon. I have a feeling this might come up in the hearings.

Dorries asserts he cannot have knowingly done wrong.
Her argument is that photographers were there and nobody would do a crime in front of a photographer.




What a potentially joyful week lies ahead. We could witness

Spaffer: "Finally facing his Waterloo" (Abba party - geddit!!)

Meanwhile in the USA Cheeto Benito could be arrested next Tuesday.

The photos argument is somewhat undermined by the fact that absolutely shit tons of official No. 10 pics are uploaded to their Instagram and have been for years, showing all sorts of stuff including staff celebrations pre and post lockdown. Yet not a single partygate photo went up, and they were only circulated once leaked as evidence.

Odd, because if everyone thought it was OK and within the rules there would be no reason why official pics wouldn’t be used. But mysteriously, none were.

Funny, that. Almost like they knew something was up.