Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%

  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
Goldhawk-Road said:
I wouldn't per se, Bob, because one breach of a relatively minor law (the penalty for which is less than doing 32mph in a 30 limit) is not serious enough for resignation imo. However, if there are many more breaches involving Boris Johnson and the Sue Gray report is damning, then I suspect his MP's will force a leadership challenge.
Click to expand...
This is where we will have to agree to disagree Goldy. To me the breaking of a law that one implemented is nothing short of taking the absolute piss. But the electorate chose this man to lead the country and thats where the blame for a ****ed up mess should be aimed, not actually at the man himself.
 
sb_73 said:
Because doing so would have put much more pressure on Johnson and the Tories, plus even if he us ‘done nothing wrong’ it’s pretty clear that he and his entourage have been economical with the truth.

Pretty sure just the gesture of saying he would resign, had he done it early, might have been enough without having to see it through.
Click to expand...
Its actually become irrelevant as to what Starmer does. The bar has been set and its pretty ****ing low. Johnson will do whatever he pleases. Dem de rules
 
bobmid said:
This is where we will have to agree to disagree Goldy. To me the breaking of a law that one implemented is nothing short of taking the absolute piss. But the electorate chose this man to lead the country and thats where the blame for a ****ed up mess should be aimed, not actually at the man himself.
Click to expand...

Have to say Bob, that in my opinion, your last paragraph is complete nonesense.
People vote in good faith generally and it is absolutely the fault of the complete bellends in politics when they **** things up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ELLERS
sb_73 said:
Because doing so would have put much more pressure on Johnson and the Tories, plus even if he us ‘done nothing wrong’ it’s pretty clear that he and his entourage have been economical with the truth.

Pretty sure just the gesture of saying he would resign, had he done it early, might have been enough without having to see it through.
Click to expand...

Well yes, I think that's what I posted earlier. He should say right now that he would resign if found to have broken the law, thereby putting the pressure back on Johnson. I suspect he'll be exonerated though - I seem to remember that when this came out originally, they were pointing out that there was some kind of dispensation for political campaigning - so no point in actually resigning unnecessarily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QPR Oslo
rangercol said:
Have to say Bob, that in my opinion, your last paragraph is complete nonesense.
People vote in good faith generally and it is absolutely the fault of the complete bellends in politics when they **** things up.
Click to expand...
You reap what you sow mate. This bloke was a **** up well before people voted for him to run the country.
 
Stroller said:
Well yes, I think that's what I posted earlier. He should say right now that he would resign if found to have broken the law, thereby putting the pressure back on Johnson. I suspect he'll be exonerated though - I seem to remember that when this came out originally, they were pointing out that there was some kind of dispensation for political campaigning - so no point in actually resigning unnecessarily.
Click to expand...

Starmer making a statement on this at 4pm
 
Stroller said:
He's done what I suggested he ought to do.
Click to expand...

He has, in a qualified way. If he has broken the rules but not offered a fine, which I understand is possible, he won't go. That could be the worst of all worlds. For a steady/dull type man, he's taken quite a gamble.
 
Last edited:
Goldhawk-Road said:
He has, in a qualified way. If he has broken the rules but not offered a fine, which I understand is possible, he won't go. That could be the worst of all worlds. For a steady/dull type man, he's taken quite a gamble.
Click to expand...
Is that even possible? Youve either broken the rules or you havent?!?!?!
 
Goldhawk-Road said:
He has, in a qualified way. If he has broken the rules but not offered a fine, which I understand is possible, he won't go. That could be the worst of all worlds. For a steady/dull type man, he's taken quite a gamble.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as a gamble. He's still insisting that no rules were broken, so what he's saying is, 'I've done nothing wrong, but if I had, I'd resign. Unlike the Prime Minister'.

Could be a winner.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: QPR Oslo
Stroller said:
I don't see it as a gamble. He's still insisting that no rules were broken, so what he's saying is, 'I've done nothing wrong, but if I had, I'd resign. Unlike the Prime Minister'.

Could be a winner.
Click to expand...
Im now at the point where i couldnt care less. The way uk politics has been dragged through the sewers, then pumped into our local rivers is beyond repair. Parliment needs a complete overhaul from not having to call each other honourable for starters, to a constant fact checker or 2 in attendance at all times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD, Hoop-Leif and sb_73
Stroller said:
I don't see it as a gamble. He's still insisting that no rules were broken, so what he's saying is, 'I've done nothing wrong, but if I had, I'd resign. Unlike the Prime Minister'.

Could be a winner.
Click to expand...

He says he'll go if he's offered a fine i.e. fine, as opposed to being prosecuted. But if he's broken the rules but Durham Police see fit not to issue a fine, because, say, it's not in the public interest to prosecute if he won't accept the fine, then he stays as a rule breaker. Which gets him, where...?
 
rangercol said:
So there's no possibility Starmer will get a fine?
Click to expand...

I was just giving an example of breach but no fine. But, yes, there could be a fine. Durham police may go to the CPS for a view. If the CPS say there is a reasonable chance of success in court and it's in the public interest to prosecute if (in theory) Starmer rejected a fine, then Durham may offer Starmer a fine in place of prosecution.

My understanding is that it works like motoring offences, where penalty and points are offered in place of a criminal court case.
 
Goldhawk-Road said:
You can break the rules but the Durham Police Force say it's not their policy to issue retrospective fines.
Click to expand...
So if they say its a breach of the rules but we won’t be issuing a notice because of our policy, Starmer won’t walk?

And he thinks people won’t see through this? His USP is honesty v Boris. That’s that ****ed then. ****ing lawyers letter of the law bollocks. Even if they say no breach, beers and curries in a big group when the rest of us were being told not to see anyone outside of the people we live with is taking the piss. Campaign planning is not essential work, that can only be done face to face, what a crock of ****. I’m glad some creepy twat took a photo of them at it.

These people, whatever ****ing party they represent, are a complete waste of space. I want all that oxygen they use back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Goldhawk-Road, kiwiqpr and rangercol
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back