National News Boris Johnson - Ousted Former PM

I do not agree with the way the government are going about this. It looks really bad and looks Orwellian.

On the flip side of the argument, I know that FOI requests and EIR are regularly abused by vexatious campaigners and individuals and they are draining significant resource from already stretched to the limit Public Bodies to simply deal with the requests for information. The irony being that the precious resource is being diverted away from the very jobs they are being criticised for not doing effectively! Not only that but many FOI's cannot be answered "to the satisfaction of the enquiror" because they are the subject of legal proceedings. The advent of social media and the ease with which pressure groups can be whipped up (and often misinformation and conspiracy theories used to whip up genuine anger and paranoia) has made the problem exponentially worse.

I agree that government and its arms length bodies should be open and transparent, but at the same time they need the ability to robustly reject vaccuous and vexatious FOI's. I am not sure they always can or do at present.

It is an extremely tricky balance to find and I am not sure anyone has the right answer that will satisfy.
FOIs are also used by business trying to harvest useful (to them) commercial information from government in order to sell services back to them. These can be even more resource hungry than vexatious requests.

However I would disagree that a balance should be made. Whoever is going to oversee the setting of any balance has an opportunity to manipulate the rules to their advantage. I think the downsides are simply an annoying byproduct of transparency but one that has to be accepted seeing as you can't have one without the other.
 
Last edited:
Are you going to put in for the job. They need someone to flick the switch for the "electric shock gay therapy" outlawed in many countries, but your mate Boris is stalling on making it illegal in this country

He`s opposed to it and has said so on many occasions.

Sometimes it not as easy to fix as it may seem.

As an example would a psychotherapist asking about sexual preference or sexual happiness be open to being accused of "gay therapy" or "supressing" the patients choices? I don`t know, but like I said it`s more complex than we might see.
 
At least this isn’t happening at the same time as the government-appointed BBC board is cancelling shows that take the P**s out of said government for the purposes of humour.

Otherwise I would start to be concerned that we’re morphing into a totalitarian state.

Orwellian state? Not to far away.... try Scotland.
 
He`s opposed to it and has said so on many occasions.

Sometimes it not as easy to fix as it may seem.

As an example would a psychotherapist asking about sexual preference or sexual happiness be open to being accused of "gay therapy" or "supressing" the patients choices? I don`t know, but like I said it`s more complex than we might see.

They really do read this forum!!
 
At least this isn’t happening at the same time as the government-appointed BBC board is cancelling shows that take the P**s out of said government for the purposes of humour.

Otherwise I would start to be concerned that we’re morphing into a totalitarian state.
What could they be scared of?

 
Our glorious, dishevelled boss man
 

Attachments

  • FC89B04E-5103-4CAB-AD6E-AA416E068706.jpeg
    FC89B04E-5103-4CAB-AD6E-AA416E068706.jpeg
    78.2 KB · Views: 6
It`s politics, they all say what they think the people want to hear, balanced with the information they are fed by "interested parties".

Anyone who thinks the key decisions are made in any other way is, frankly, deluded.

A politician can make a decision that I think is right but it doesn`t make it right for all the people in my road as our individual compasses are all set differently.

EG: Blair acted on what people were telling him even though it was wrong, Starmer got muddled on some words, Johnson wrongly suggested it was an open vote.

Errors all the way, magnified by the persons position and choices.
Sorry but that is a cop out. Johnson not only in an habitual liar. Certainly the only PM who has lost at least 2 to jobs/roles for lying but is morally bankrupt. In fact I'm sure he would give any contract for another new conquest in a skirt.
This is the lowest, both morally and ethically, person to live in No 10 Downing Street in living memory.
This, all the others lie, may be true but Johnson has taken it to a new level. Indeed you cannot believe a word he says.
If he really is the best available it really shows now appalling the Conservative party standards have fallen to.
 
Sorry but that is a cop out. Johnson not only in an habitual liar. Certainly the only PM who has lost at least 2 to jobs/roles for lying but is morally bankrupt. In fact I'm sure he would give any contract for another new conquest in a skirt.
This is the lowest, both morally and ethically, person to live in No 10 Downing Street in living memory.
This, all the others lie, may be true but Johnson has taken it to a new level. Indeed you cannot believe a word he says.
If he really is the best available it really shows now appalling the Conservative party standards have fallen to.
In politics, expediency always trumps morals and ethics.
 
Sorry but that is a cop out. Johnson not only in an habitual liar. Certainly the only PM who has lost at least 2 to jobs/roles for lying but is morally bankrupt. In fact I'm sure he would give any contract for another new conquest in a skirt.
This is the lowest, both morally and ethically, person to live in No 10 Downing Street in living memory.
This, all the others lie, may be true but Johnson has taken it to a new level. Indeed you cannot believe a word he says.
If he really is the best available it really shows now appalling the Conservative party standards have fallen to.

No cop out at all.
The reality is that politicians appeal to the majority and say what they believe in to "please" that majority.
As long as that majority are, primarily, behind them then they push on.
When that majority start to seriously question their policies, their direction or their behaviour then they fall.
Morals, ethics and the interpretation of both are down to the unconscious bias of the individual.
 
Oh no.... a laughter emoji....... feck me stop the world! ❄️❄️❄️:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: <---- fill your boots.

It`s how it is sometimes and they all do it.

Remember Blair`s "weapons of mass destruction ready to fire" ? .................. cost more lives than an error on a non-voting matter.

Tell you what have the lot....................everyone a misleading statement, an error or a blatant lie.

April 10, 2002 – House of Commons
“For the moment, let me say this: Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked. He is a threat to his own people and to the region and, if allowed to develop these weapons, a threat to us also.”

September 24, 2002 – House of Commons
“The Joint Intelligence Committee concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population, and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.”

October 2, 2002 – Speech at the Labour Part Conference
“Sometimes, and in particular dealing with a dictator, the only chance of peace is a readiness for war.”

February 25, 2003 – House of Commons

“The intelligence is clear: [Saddam Hussein] continues to believe that his weapons of mass destruction programme is essential both for internal repression and for external aggression. The biological agents we believe Iraq can produce include anthrax, botulinum, toxin, aflatoxin and ricin. All eventually result in excruciatingly painful death.”

Start of the war, March 20, 2003

April 28, 2003 – Prime Minister’s monthly press conference

“Before people crow about the absence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.”

June 4, 2003 – House of Commons
“As I have said throughout, I have no doubt that they will find the clearest possible evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.”

September 5, 2003 – Interview with the New York Times
“They ask why we don't get rid of Mugabe, why not the Burmese lot. Yes, let's get rid of them all. I don't because I can't, but when you can you should.”

December 16, 2003 – Speech to British forces
“The Iraq Survey Group has already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories, workings by scientists, plans to develop long range ballistic missiles.”

January 11, 2004 – Interview on the BBC
“I remember having conversations with the chief of defence staff and other people were saying well, we think we might have potential WMD find here or there.

“Now these things didn't actually come to anything in the end, but I don't know is the answer.”

June 6, 2004 – Interview on the BBC
“What we also know is we haven't found them [weapons of mass destruction] in Iraq - now let the survey group complete its work and give us the report.”

September 28, 2004 – Speech to the Labour Party
“Do I know I'm right? Judgements aren't the same as facts. Instinct is not science. I'm like any other human being, as fallible and as capable of being wrong. I only know what I believe. The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong.”


Oh.............. there we go...
I agree that the calibre of Politicians we have in this country are way below par compared with our western counterparts. This is down to our odd educational system
 
Thanks for sharing this article.
Presumably you are concerned about democracy in the UK ?
Are you drawing/seeing parallels from Hitler in the 1930’s ?
 
Whilst not in any way comparing the present UK government with past regimes in another place and another time...

I do worry that we are moving towards a more restrictive society. One where police powers are increased, personal freedoms eroded, the right to protest is branded as 'trouble making' or 'subversive', questioning the status quo is somehow 'unpatriotic', politicians are almost expected to tell bare-faced lies and are excused for doing so when they are caught, criticism of the powers that be by public broadcasters is threatened with de-funding and almost *anything* is allowed as long as they can hang the phrase 'national security' on it whether true or not.
 
I do worry that we are moving towards a more restrictive society. One where police powers are increased, personal freedoms eroded, the right to protest is branded as 'trouble making' or 'subversive', questioning the status quo is somehow 'unpatriotic', politicians are almost expected to tell bare-faced lies and are excused for doing so when they are caught, criticism of the powers that be by public broadcasters is threatened with de-funding and almost *anything* is allowed as long as they can hang the phrase 'national security' on it whether true or not.
If only books had been written many, many decades ago warning us of this exact endgame.

It’s a slow and gradual process. Just keep turning the pot up a little bit at a time until people end up cooked without even realising. It smells delicious to some but they’re usually too stupid to realise that it’s their own boiling flesh they’re drooling over. I said it already - the policing bill being pushed through at the moment is a huge deal. It essentially makes it illegal to protest if the government so decides, under any circumstances.

I still don’t think people even realise how dangerous a time we’re living in. That’s the most worrying thing. Too many people either distracted by other things or completely numb to it. It’s actually quite sick in the head. Encourage people to harm their own country (an act of treason) and restrict their own freedoms and rights while pretending that it’s patriotic to do so.
 
Jeez.........it`s true, wait long enough and Godwins law arrives.

Are we moving towards a police state? No.
Are we moving towards the suppression of protest? No.
Are we moving towards the suppression of democracy? No.

Are we being divided along narrow lines by "social media". Hell yes.
Are those social media echo chambers dangerous and incredibly bias? Hell yes.

Are we losing our human connection? Yes, because of the current "rules" our vision of the world through social media can become very myopic.

It`s not a bad world out there, most folk are just trying to get along with life but if you look at anyone with a microscope you`ll find something you don`t like.
 
Back
Top Bottom