National News Boris Johnson - Ousted Former PM

The cynical among us might say 'only because nobody has found it yet'...
well there is always that chance. this just smacks more of lack of thought/intelligence/basic reading and desperation than corruption this time.
 
now thats a shock...:eek:
the company they bought into that has a failed satellite network that is entirely the wrong sort of satellite network to run a GPS-like system, now they have found that out, but are left with the bill to clean up the non-useful satellites - wow, no-one predicted that....shambles.
the only surprise here is that so far there is no cash trail to a Tory donor.

Alternative view.............. UK Space Agency wants said company & kit "on the cheap" .................or some money to buy it and "integrate it".
Lots of speculative language in the article. Much like HS2 some "projects" reach a point where too much is invested and something must be salvaged for some suits dignity.

Irrespective of rosette colour btw.
 
Alternative view.............. UK Space Agency wants said company & kit "on the cheap" .................or some money to buy it and "integrate it".
Lots of speculative language in the article. Much like HS2 some "projects" reach a point where too much is invested and something must be salvaged for some suits dignity.

Irrespective of rosette colour btw.

That would be a very, very generous view considering the comments made by the Govt at the time.
 
Alternative view.............. UK Space Agency wants said company & kit "on the cheap" .................or some money to buy it and "integrate it".
Lots of speculative language in the article. Much like HS2 some "projects" reach a point where too much is invested and something must be salvaged for some suits dignity.

Irrespective of rosette colour btw.

This came from government (well, not government, closer to Boris than that) not the space agency - it was the usual "no-one is interested in experts" viewpoint when it was pointed out that the satellites couldn't be used for positioning as they were in an unsuitable orbit. Zero due diligence was done in buying a large stake in a private failing company, especially in terms of the massive risk of future costs. None was was previously invested, so nothing to to rescue in terms of dignity or anything else. This was a political move to offset the loss of access to Galileo after Brexit. This is not blue/red/yellow, this is competent vs incompetent.
 

Hasn't this already been discredited as he was at his kids christening on the 12th at Westminster Cathedral?
 
Hasn't this already been discredited as he was at his kids christening on the 12th at Westminster Cathedral?
You could be right. Presumably there’s proof it actually took place when they say it did, and that Bozza was actually in attendance, beyond them simply saying so?

That being said, whether he went to Perugia on those dates is not actually the most concerning thing in that thread by far. You would really have to go some to actually read it all and go, “What’s the problem?”
 
Hasn't this already been discredited as he was at his kids christening on the 12th at Westminster Cathedral?

Bit of digging and this is from the airport he was meant to of landed at:

Perugia Airport's president "Mr Johnson was 'definitely' not at the airport and staff mistook him for ex-Labour PM Mr Blair."
 
You could be right. Presumably there’s proof it actually took place when they say it did, and that Bozza was actually in attendance, beyond them simply saying so?

That being said, whether he went to Perugia on those dates is not actually the most concerning thing in that thread by far. You would really have to go some to actually read it all and go, “What’s the problem?”

Yes Westminster Cathedral have confirmed it and as per my post above it was a case of mistaken identity with Tony Blair... somebody seriously needs an eye test at that airport!!!
 
Yes Westminster Cathedral have confirmed it and as per my post above it was a case of mistaken identity with Tony Blair... somebody seriously needs an eye test at that airport!!!
And the rest of it? Cos whether he was there or not isn’t actually the issue here. If you actually read the thing you’ll see that.

Or we can just put fingers in ears and shout la la la la. Either way.
 
And the rest of it? Cos whether he was there or not isn’t actually the issue here. If you actually read the thing you’ll see that.

Or we can just put fingers in ears and shout la la la la. Either way.

I've read it and the claim that Johnson was in Perugia appears to be the focal point of the article /Twitter thread / whatever that is.

If that has been debunked it kind of discredits whatever else this person is saying.
 
And the rest of it? Cos whether he was there or not isn’t actually the issue here. If you actually read the thing you’ll see that.

Or we can just put fingers in ears and shout la la la la. Either way.

I think the whole screaming and screaching on Twitter for the last couple of days was in the main around him flying off during a pandemic and Brexit. This one chap has brought up the thing about the Russian which is actually old news and just put 2 and 2 together and got 5... so no fingers in ears just not going to irrationally jump on every bandwagon that throws muck at Boris Johnson, just the ones that have a some credibility and not rehashing old dirt!

Further to this if your echo chamber in Twitter is so 1 dimensional that it doesn't show you that this was discredited yesterday and then you might want to think about broadening who you follow to include those that don't just mirror your opinions, it is quite enlightening and will give you a far rounder view of what is going on. Also means you get the fun of watching both sides have melt downs, which is rather fun with a cup of tea and a spare half hour.
 
Y
I've read it and the claim that Johnson was in Perugia appears to be the focal point of the article /Twitter thread / whatever that is.

If that has been debunked it kind of discredits whatever else this person is saying.
You're happy with your governments performance? Note that references to Corbyn are not relevant at this time. I assume you realise that it’s possible to be a staunch old Tory and still feel that Johnson is handling everything very poorly.
 
I've read it and the claim that Johnson was in Perugia appears to be the focal point of the article /Twitter thread / whatever that is.

If that has been debunked it kind of discredits whatever else this person is saying.
So because he may or may not have been in Perugia (let’s assume there’s firm evidence and we aren’t just taking words for that, because transparency and truthfulness are certainly a given these days), absolutely everything else burns, does it?

The issue isn’t about a Perugia jolly - what it does (perhaps accidentally) is re-open a conversation on the individuals the PM HAS mixed with for a number of years, who they are and what they do - not to mention the links these people have with other influential figures who have affected and influenced our country - isn’t something that goes away. Whether he went there recently or not, the rest of it doesn’t just disappear. All the other associations don’t vanish into thin air and suddenly become irrelevant.

It’s a fairly impressive feat to look at every last part of it and shrug, but different strokes for different folks and all that.
 
Y

You're happy with your governments performance? Note that references to Corbyn are not relevant at this time. I assume you realise that it’s possible to be a staunch old Tory and still feel that Johnson is handling everything very poorly.

I'm not a Tory actually, and I believe the Government's performance is a 5/10. Not happy but not unhappy. Some indecisiveness at important times. I really don't like the idea of trying to get people back to work to save sandwich shops when this is the golden opportunity to really protect the environment and change the way we all live.

However, I don't see which of our alternative parties would have done a better job and now we need some decisiveness as the lockdown debate kicks up again and importantly the furlough scheme winds down.

However the article above was a discredited conspiracy theory and fake news needs to be highlighted.
 
So because he may or may not have been in Perugia (let’s assume there’s firm evidence and we aren’t just taking words for that, because transparency and truthfulness are certainly a given these days), absolutely everything else burns, does it?

The issue isn’t about a Perugia jolly - what it does (perhaps accidentally) is re-open a conversation on the individuals the PM HAS mixed with for a number of years, who they are and what they do - not to mention the links these people have with other influential figures who have affected and influenced our country - isn’t something that goes away. Whether he went there recently or not, the rest of it doesn’t just disappear. All the other associations don’t vanish into thin air and suddenly become irrelevant.

It’s a fairly impressive feat to look at every last part of it and shrug, but different strokes for different folks and all that.

Well you seriously need to question any author's motive when they kick off their headline grabbing press piece with a conspiracy theory. Especially when the evidence suggests that the conspiracy is false.
 
Well you seriously need to question any author's motive when they kick off their headline grabbing press piece with a conspiracy theory. Especially when the evidence suggests that the conspiracy is false.
Regardless of how it starts, there is plenty in there about our PM, his circles and the links of others who have shaped - and continue to shape - what is going on in the UK that is true, goes back years and has nothing to do with the jump off point. If someone brought up some rather damning and questionable behaviour of mine, but started off by saying I was at a barbecue on a day that I then claim I wasn’t, that has nothing to do with any other points that they make. It doesn’t change the fact that they might have listed a dozen things that are totally true and provable. I don’t get to throw it all on the bonfire and write it off just because I say I wasn’t tucking into a hot dog when they say I was.

Point 5 doesn’t change.
Point 6 doesn’t change.
Points 8/9/10 don’t change.
Point 13 doesn’t change.
Point 14 doesn’t change.
Point 15 doesn’t change.

And so on. If people want to believe otherwise, that’s fine.
 
Regardless of how it starts, there is plenty in there about our PM, his circles and the links of others who have shaped - and continue to shape - what is going on in the UK that is true, goes back years and has nothing to do with the jump off point. If someone brought up some rather damning and questionable behaviour of mine, but started off by saying I was at a barbecue on a day that I then claim I wasn’t, that has nothing to do with any other points that they make. It doesn’t change the fact that they might have listed a dozen things that are totally true and provable. I don’t get to throw it all on the bonfire and write it off just because I say I wasn’t tucking into a hot dog when they say I was.

Point 5 doesn’t change.
Point 6 doesn’t change.
Points 8/9/10 don’t change.
Point 13 doesn’t change.
Point 14 doesn’t change.
Point 15 doesn’t change.

And so on. If people want to believe otherwise, that’s fine.

Well the author himself says "But the real question is: in the midst of the 2nd wave of Covid-19 AND during the most crucial period in EU trade deal negotiations AND during the largest recession in modern history, did Prime Minister Johnson toddle off on a jolly?" - so it appears to be the crux of his argument that Johnson went?

Also just taking your first point, number 5. That appears to read: "One time in 2018, whilst foreign secretary and just after the Salisbury poisonings, he went to Perugia without any security and was seen at the airport looking disheveled and worse for wear."

What does that matter? Seen by whom? Is there any evidence for this? Who determines what "disheveled" is? What is that supposed to be evidence of?

To be honest although your opinion is normally worth reading, the article you've posted here is absolute dogshit. No new information. No sources. Just an opinion piece based on a BBC news article. I know it's a bit cliche to dismiss Twitter content just because of Twitter, but by God that thread is a shining example of why people shouldn't be using the website to obtain genuine information.
 
Well the author himself says "But the real question is: in the midst of the 2nd wave of Covid-19 AND during the most crucial period in EU trade deal negotiations AND during the largest recession in modern history, did Prime Minister Johnson toddle off on a jolly?" - so it appears to be the crux of his argument that Johnson went?

Also just taking your first point, number 5. That appears to read: "One time in 2018, whilst foreign secretary and just after the Salisbury poisonings, he went to Perugia without any security and was seen at the airport looking disheveled and worse for wear."

What does that matter? Seen by whom? Is there any evidence for this? Who determines what "disheveled" is? What is that supposed to be evidence of?

To be honest although your opinion is normally worth reading, the article you've posted here is absolute dogshit. No new information. No sources. Just an opinion piece based on a BBC news article. I know it's a bit cliche to dismiss Twitter content just because of Twitter, but by God that thread is a shining example of why people shouldn't be using the website to obtain genuine information.
I think that while I agree with you that the ‘author’ has undone himself on a couple of occasions by being sloppy to say the least, you’re intentionally overlooking a number of things in there that do have basis and are of interest and potentially concern. You can either chuck out the bits you think are total crap and hold your hands up to the bits that clearly aren’t and go “these ones are fair enough, they’re questionable and some of the links between people in this are smelly” or you can burn the entire thing in a hurry. But given there are numerous things in there that aren’t opinion, gossip or guesswork, burning them by association is a curious approach. Everyone should strive to pick things apart, and if something stinks it certainly should be flagged, but throwing the good on the fire with the bad isn’t a healthy response. It’s what people do when they want to destroy things they don’t like, or that they don’t want people to see.
 
Back
Top Bottom