National News Boris Johnson - Ousted Former PM

[Essexyellows]

Good to know you value lining the pockets of your chums over doing the right thing for the majority of the population who could do with a bit more support and a lot more honesty

I`m not bothered about things I can`t change, its a far more relaxing way to live.

They got the votes, they do the job we elected them to do and we will judge them at the next ballot.

It`s how it works.

Oooooohhhmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

I`m not bothered about things I can`t change, its a far more relaxing way to live.

They got the votes, they do the job we elected them to do and we will judge them at the next ballot.

It`s how it works.

Oooooohhhmmmmmmmmmm.

And extremely self-centered.

Each to their own, I guess

 

[QR]

What the speaker has or hadn't said doesn't really concern me.

What concerns me is having a serial liar as a PM.

@Essexyellows you've responded to my post with a laughter emoji.

Seriously, what funny about having a PM who can't stop lying?

 

[Essexyellows]

@Essexyellows you've responded to my post with a laughter emoji.

Seriously, what funny about having a PM who can't stop lying?

Oh no.... a laughter emoji....... feck me stop the world! <---- 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...

 

[QR]

Oh no.... a laughter emoji....... feck me stop the world! <---- 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...

And this makes Johnson's lies funny?

 

[Essexyellows]

And this makes Johnson's lies funny?

No, it makes your angst about not much very funny but there is only one emoji.

 

[QR]

No, it makes your angst about not much very funny but there is only one emoji.

A lying PM is 'not much'. Says a lot about your principles.... but it's nothing we didn't already know.

 

[Essexyellows]

A lying PM is 'not much'. Says a lot about your principles.... but it's nothing we didn't already know.

Blair lied, Johnson lied........ they all lie.... find me one who didn`t ever lie.

It`s what politicians do!!!

Starmer - European Medicines Agency , four times he said he wanted to stay in the EMA then lied (directly) when Boris pulled him up on it.

 

[QR]

Blair lied, Johnson lied........ they all lie.... find me one who didn`t ever lie.

It`s what politicians do!!!

Starmer - European Medicines Agency , four times he said he wanted to stay in the EMA then lied (directly) when Boris pulled him up on it.

Starmer was wrong and it certainly makes me trust him less. He shouldn't forget such pretty fundamental things. Where as your blind support for Johnson continues unabated.

 

[chuckbert]

Blair lied, Johnson lied........ they all lie.... find me one who didn`t ever lie.

It`s what politicians do!!!

Starmer - European Medicines Agency , four times he said he wanted to stay in the EMA then lied (directly) when Boris pulled him up on it.

What a beat up job. Putting up Blair’s murderous lies against Starmer misunderstanding Boris’s point because he thought he was banging on about a similarly named scheme (and this seems to be the only thing anyone can even think of to pin on Starmer).
And while Blair’s lies were of the impeachable kind, you can not use them excuse Boris’s habitual and repeated brazen bullshit.

They’re not all the same. Not by the widest definition.

 

[Essexyellows]

What a beat up job. Putting up Blair’s murderous lies against Starmer misunderstanding Boris’s point because he thought he was banging on about a similarly named scheme (and this seems to be the only thing anyone can even think of to pin on Starmer).
And while Blair’s lies were of the impeachable kind, you can not use them excuse Boris’s habitual and repeated brazen bullshit.

They’re not all the same. Not by the widest definition.

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.

 

[rosieburns]

As good a place as any.......

Diddums found it was a tough role and not all candy floss and fluffy clouds...

Act now on LGBT+ conversion therapy, ministers urged

A string of advisers quit amid concerns ministers are not delivering on a pledge to ban the practice.

www.bbc.co.uk

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

 

[QR]

Johnson wrongly suggested it was an open vote.

There wasn't even a vote let alone an open vote.

You know I could accept this as a mistake on Johnson's part if it were a one off, but seeing as he misrepresents in this way on almost a weekly basis it can only be a deliberately strategy to lie and be dammed because they know enough people will swallow it without challenge to make it worth their while. When people like you fall for it they are probably right.

It's the end justifies the means approach of an amoral, untrustworthy, entitled, sleazy, hurtful, evasive, ignorant, cowardly, LYING government.

 

[arthurturner]

A plague on all their houses. All politicians are as bad as each other. They all lie when it suits them. Don't try and pretend that the ones you support are any different from the ones you don't. Having said that, would you want to live under any other regime in the world? At least here you're not likely to get shot by the military on the street; imprisoned for years because you oppose the despot in charge, or have to suffer a corrupt or idiot president.

 

[m]

A plague on all their houses. All politicians are as bad as each other. They all lie when it suits them. Don't try and pretend that the ones you support are any different from the ones you don't. Having said that, would you want to live under any other regime in the world? At least here you're not likely to get shot by the military on the street; imprisoned for years because you oppose the despot in charge, or have to suffer a corrupt or idiot president.

Well not president, no.

 

[chuckbert]

A plague on all their houses. All politicians are as bad as each other. They all lie when it suits them. Don't try and pretend that the ones you support are any different from the ones you don't. Having said that, would you want to live under any other regime in the world? At least here you're not likely to get shot by the military on the street; imprisoned for years because you oppose the despot in charge, or have to suffer a corrupt or idiot president.

Any other regime in the world? There are quite a few places that are less despotic than the current Uk administration.

 

[chuckbert]

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.

That’s got nothing to do with the issue of lying. Boris is a liar with a long, long recorded history of doing so.
With Blair it was either a massive lapse of judgement or there was some lying going on there. He was a smart enough operator that I favour the latter.
Starmer fucked up a response in the house and that seems to be enough for everyone to say “ooh see they’re all the same, what do you expect?”. Raise your standards folks.

They aren’t all the same. They aren’t all liars to the same extent, and calling some them liars is not politically motivated. I don’t think Maggie was a liar as much as I disliked a lot of her politics. I don’t think Norman Tebbitt or Tony Benn were liars despite occupying completely different ends of my good books.

 

[Marked Ox]

Well the Govt is really looking to take back control for themselves, not the population:

New law will pull veil of secrecy over government environmental failures, campaigners warn

Government will ban watchdog from releasing correspondence and information to create ‘safe space’

www.independent.co.uk

Transparency and accountability being blocked while creating an independent regulator that isn't really independent, so the Govt have something to hide behind.

 

[RyanioBirdio]

Well the Govt is really looking to take back control for themselves, not the population:

New law will pull veil of secrecy over government environmental failures, campaigners warn

Government will ban watchdog from releasing correspondence and information to create ‘safe space’

www.independent.co.uk

Transparency and accountability being blocked while creating an independent regulator that isn't really independent, so the Govt have something to hide behind.

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.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

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.