Your 'sources' are more reliable than legal documentation? Can you quote these sources this time or is it like your EU sources where we just have to trust you? "The court is dealing with an application, dated 20th February 2019 and received by this court on the 25th February 2019, for a summons against the proposed defendant, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, for three offences alleging misconduct in a public office." "PROCEDURAL HISTORY 4. The application was given to me to consider on the 8th March. On the 15th March the proposed defendant was written to inviting him to make written representations about the application. 5. The proposed defendant instructed solicitors. An exchange of correspondence led to my holding a closed hearing on the 14th May 2019 dealing with disclosure of the documents referred to in the information and an earlier legal opinion given to the applicant. A public hearing took place on the 23rd May 2019"
....and you still don't think there is a likely conspiracy at this moment.......IE you all think he's guilty? before the conclusions. Why do I need to prove what Im saying from my different sources?? Either way if I did you would obviously want to try and discredit them. Its just their opinion which I trust a lot more than the newspapers. Is it wrong that I am to mention it on here because it goes against your thinking?
What the hell are you on about? Those are LEGAL COURT DOCUMENTS as witnessed by and seemingly not contradicted by boris Johnson's own lawyers. These are not opinions they are facts. The timing is factually coincidental with May's resignation. When this legal process started it was believed we would have already left the EU by now. And that's not even taking into account how long it's taken to crowd fund etc. Whether he's guilty or not has little to do with the timing, other than the decision by the person in charge of the case that that was enough evidence to proceed to a public hearing and then trail.
I tell you what the hell I'm on about........I have not disagreed with anything you have said.........All I have said is I feel the big publicity around the case is a bit suspicious to me. You obviously disagree.....as is your right but Don't keep having a go at me because I think differently to you.........
I Think you need to reread your first post and retract that statement then rather than slandering our legal system and judges if you no longer think the timing of this going public is suspicious
No conspiracy or assumption of guilt. Conspiracy by whom? There is a case to be answered which may end up in front of a jury by which time the defendant could be PM. What sort of a triumph is that can someone tell me?
With all the scandal going on do you honestly think he could still be PM ??? Conspiracy perhaps by news papers or the quangos that notify the papers or remind them.........Am I not entitled to think what I do? Have we seen all the dirt that is likely to come out regarding the pm's successors? I hope we have but somehow I doubt it............
Why should a court case involving a public figure like Boris not be in the papers or TV? I honestly don’t see what you’re worried about, this has been in the public domain for months and months, as anyone taking an interest could find out. It’s probably been discussed on this forum before now as well. The only possible conspiracy is the leadership election taking place at the same time, which could possibly be down to the men in grey suits forcing May to resign at this time to put Boris in an impossible position. So if there is a conspiracy, it’s going on deep in the bowels of the Tory Party.
I haven’t said it shouldn’t be in the papers or TV......Only that to me every time he is seen in a slightly favourable light. Or we haven’t been reminded for a few days of the pending court case......it makes the headlines. I certainly don’t hope he makes pm. .........and yes I do think there are those in the Tory party trying to ensure he is not in the running.
Out of all the reason for the Tory party to be forcing May to resign I don't think stitching Boris up would be at the top (Not that in trying to say you actually believe that theory) Anyway the reasons why this has taken the time it has and why has been made public is all in those court documents produced by the judge. The hearing where it was decided to proceed with the trial and that this trial would be made public only took place over the last few days after months of discussions with Johnsons lawyers and other dated legal steps. Saying otherwise is accusing the judge of lying and on a public forum is defamation and actually not something you are entitled to do without evidence you could present in court.
Theresa May is a Remainer, and I hope now that when she steps down from PM she'll go back to fighting the Remain cause. Stepping down at this time is her final act at cutting Boris Johnson off at the knees. She presided over an impossible situation while at No. 10. and this is the one good thing she has done. Whether she was helped by the men in grey suits, I don't know. But if there is any shady conspiracy, I'd be willing to bet it's there. After all, the Tory Party never does anything out in the open. It's all secretly behind closed doors of smoked filled rooms and always has been.
Is Boris EVER seen in favourable light, slight or otherwise? The man is a proven liar, makes comments that are/can be considered racist, has cheated on his wife several times, and despite his apparent academic intelligence, he is a buffoon of the highest order. I struggle to understand why people feel the need to defend him.
Out of the mouths of children....... The show host is bang out of order for calling the little girl naughty, for repeating something that is, basically, undeniable. https://video-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v...9c2842bd2b32b62fa6e31fd13a3f&oe=5CF01F53&dl=1
A great piece by Ash Sarkar on how Labour should fight for Remain and then fight to reform the EU from within. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...n-remain-labour-eu-elections?CMP=share_btn_fb
It's 100% true; I posted it a few pages back, sourced from the BBC on election night. Reminds me of the infamous Lizard People ballot...back in 2008, there was a very important recount for a US Senate seat. On one of the ballots, the person wrote in "Lizard People" for every race, but also selected one of the Senate candidates. Thus, a bunch of high-priced lawyers had to argue at great length about whether the person intended to vote for Al Franken, or a fictional race of extraterrestrials living in the centre of the earth: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98272423
