Boris - The Prime Minister

First thoughts on PMBoris, will he make a difference?


  • Total voters
    780
Status
Not open for further replies.

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Th
The standard you walk by, is the standard you accept.
That is correct but it also comes down to culture. BoJo believes in ‘freedom’. He believes in small government and in the minimum interference as possible.

In the UK it is generally held that anything which is not illegal is legal as opposed to some constitutions that take the view that only those things explicitly allowed are legal.

Many of us feel that we should resist the ‘mission creep’ of rules and laws. I think that is BoJo’s position. Don’t break the rules but if the rules allow it ‘party in dude’.

I would not have done that myself but I’m not BoJo.
 
Does Simon Case answer to Bozo?
Does Boris answer to the Queen?

And the Queen answers to God, so I suppose it’s his / hers fault.

ETA: A quick look at wikipedia highlights that, in certain cases, such as breaches of the Ministerial Code, the PM is answerable to the Cabinet Secretary.

Now that’ll explode a few heads on here :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Th

That is correct but it also comes down to culture. BoJo believes in ‘freedom’. He believes in small government and in the minimum interference as possible.

In the UK it is generally held that anything which is not illegal is legal as opposed to some constitutions that take the view that only those things explicitly allowed are legal.

Many of us feel that we should resist the ‘mission creep’ of rules and laws. I think that is BoJo’s position. Don’t break the rules but if the rules allow it ‘party in dude’.

I would not have done that myself but I’m not BoJo.
It’s what I keep coming back to. Were the meetings iaw with the guidance issued by the managers who are responsible for the safe working practices within the Cabinet Office. The Senior Responsible Officer won’t be Boris, it’ll be the Cabinet Secretary or one of his immediate subordinate.

The SRO has responsibility for everything that goes on in the building. They will have signed their Terms of Reference which will include the SRO roll.

Boris is the visiting General; the SRO is the Range Officer.
 
Th

That is correct but it also comes down to culture. BoJo believes in ‘freedom’. He believes in small government and in the minimum interference as possible.

In the UK it is generally held that anything which is not illegal is legal as opposed to some constitutions that take the view that only those things explicitly allowed are legal.

Many of us feel that we should resist the ‘mission creep’ of rules and laws. I think that is BoJo’s position. Don’t break the rules but if the rules allow it ‘party in dude’.

I would not have done that myself but I’m not BoJo.

But Bozo inflicted a considerable number of COVID laws on the country, with the threat of fines along with them. He specifically made certain things unlawful.
 
Does Boris answer to the Queen?

And the Queen answers to God, so I suppose it’s his / hers fault.

ETA: A quick look at wikipedia highlights that, in certain cases, such as breaches of the Ministerial Code, the PM is answerable to the Cabinet Secretary.

Now that’ll explode a few heads on here :mrgreen:

And yet Case is still in post, supported by Bozo after he presided over the train crash of behaviour in No 10, Bozo has walked by and accepted that standard from Case.
 
It’s what I keep coming back to. Were the meetings iaw with the guidance issued by the managers who are responsible for the safe working practices within the Cabinet Office. The Senior Responsible Officer won’t be Boris, it’ll be the Cabinet Secretary or one of his immediate subordinate.

The SRO has responsibility for everything that goes on in the building. They will have signed their Terms of Reference which will include the SRO roll.

Boris is the visiting General; the SRO is the Range Officer.

Ignorance of the law is no defence, no one can tell you something is legal when it isn’t and it have any bearing on your responsibility to obey the law.

If that was the case, everyone who broke the law would just say that Geoff told me it was okay.

Bozo is responsible for knowing the laws he started.
 
And yet Case is still in post, supported by Bozo after he presided over the train crash of behaviour in No 10, Bozo has walked by and accepted that standard from Case.
Which suggests to me that nothing intentionally bad occurred. Someone cocked-up the instructions issued to staff, and that cock-up was seen as unfortunate rather than deliberate.

Guidance will have been tightened and reissued. Job jobbed.
 
Ignorance of the law is no defence, no one can tell you something is legal when it isn’t and it have any bearing on your responsibility to obey the law.

If that was the case, everyone who broke the law would just say that Geoff told me it was okay.

Bozo is responsible for knowing the laws he started.
Again, please point out which covid law defines how many people can be in a meeting room, for how long, for what purposes, and if cake is allowed or not.

The law was that work gatherings were allowed for reasonable purposes.

Is it reasonable for people who work together, on the same tasks, at the same time, working on sensitive issues, with limited secure IT, to be in the same place?

Is it reasonable for them to have something to eat and drink whilst working there?

Is it reasonable for them, when there, to call in the boss about their work and then wish him happy birthday seeing it’s his birthday?

And is it reasonable, when the guidance is to avoid being within 2m of others for more than 15 minutes, to extricate yourself from the room after 9 minutes?

You also miss the point that Boris has accepted his responsibility for what you call “his ignorance of the law“ by paying the FPN.

He has accepted the rule of law and its consequences. Why can’t you? Oh, that’s right: you are not interested in the law or justice: you just want to hurt people you hate.
 
Are you for real - You seriously expect us to believe that Boris has no authority over what goes on in No.10 ? you have heard the phrase 'Moral Responsibility' ?

And what about responsibility for his OWN conduct? THAT is what he got the FPN for. Which DID come back to bite him on the Arrse.
Now that is incredibly stupid, even by your very low standards! How can you expect Boris to have 'Moral Responsibility' when you dribblers constantly claim he has no morals and is irresponsible. Duh
 
Not much of an apology. And where are the mandatory pics?

You want a pic of me NOT being Boris ? you must live a very strange life.

However to keep you happy, here's a squirrel not being Boris.


article-2260092-16D932E4000005DC-836_308x425.jpg
 
Which suggests to me that nothing intentionally bad occurred. Someone cocked-up the instructions issued to staff, and that cock-up was seen as unfortunate rather than deliberate.

Guidance will have been tightened and reissued. Job jobbed.

Do staff, specifically have to be told not to break the laws that many of them were helping introduce?

They are either incompetent or being dishonest.

Without being told, I knew that I couldn’t get drunk in a police station, smuggle in booze, vomit, destroy property, abuse staff and have leaving drinks.
 
Again, please point out which covid law defines how many people can be in a meeting room, for how long, for what purposes, and if cake is allowed or not.

The law was that work gatherings were allowed for reasonable purposes.

Is it reasonable for people who work together, on the same tasks, at the same time, working on sensitive issues, with limited secure IT, to be in the same place?

Is it reasonable for them to have something to eat and drink whilst working there?

Is it reasonable for them, when there, to call in the boss about their work and then wish him happy birthday seeing it’s his birthday?

And is it reasonable, when the guidance is to avoid being within 2m of others for more than 15 minutes, to extricate yourself from the room after 9 minutes?

You also miss the point that Boris has accepted his responsibility for what you call “his ignorance of the law“ by paying the FPN.

He has accepted the rule of law and its consequences. Why can’t you? Oh, that’s right: you are not interested in the law or justice: you just want to hurt people you hate.

On 126 occasions including Bozo, the law was broken. I have already mentioned on here, the measures enforced in my Constabulary to prevent the spread of COVID, that don’t appear to have been SOP in No 10.

Our kitchens even had chairs removed and spacing enforced with one way systems to lower the risk of infection. Definitely no leaving drinks with alcohol and birthday parties.

Maybe they were only little people rules.
 
Do staff, specifically have to be told not to break the laws that many of them were helping introduce?

First off, the staff making the rules would have been in the Department for Health. The Cabinet Office staff, if involved, would not have been working down in the weeds of the regulations.

Secondly, as a ex-copper, please tell us what security protocols were used on your police computers and how often they were patched? As those protocols and patches kept you compliant and legal, I assume you took great interest in them and never logged on without first checking that the PC was fully patched, security compliant, and that the anti-tamper strips on the back of the computer’s case were still intact?

Or did you rely on the subject matter experts (IT and building access) and trust them to do their jobs?
They are either incompetent or being dishonest.
Or they are doing their job to the best of their ability with access to limited information?

Without being told, I knew that I couldn’t get drunk in a police station, smuggle in booze, vomit, destroy property, abuse staff and have leaving drinks.
Yet, on a Naval Base, all those are fairly common occurrences. I look forward to you now demanding that Second Sea Lord resigns.
 
On 126 occasions including Bozo, the law was broken. I have already mentioned on here, the measures enforced in my Constabulary to prevent the spread of COVID, that don’t appear to have been SOP in No 10.

Our kitchens even had chairs removed and spacing enforced with one way systems to lower the risk of infection. Definitely no leaving drinks with alcohol and birthday parties.

Maybe they were only little people rules.
Or maybe the authoritarian streak you seem to revel in is more common in copshops?

If they were “little people” laws, how come the “big people” got FPNs?

The facts don’t support your attempts to vomit hatred.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top