Johnson and the Great Escape?

Have a look at their proposal for Channel 4. Nadine Dorries, whose ignorance and spite are visible from Mars, has tried to dress it up as ‘value for taxpayer money’. C4 receives no taxpayer money; she’s simply been caught out enacting her bosses’ revenge over C4’s accurate reporting of issues where the Tories have lied to get their way.

Ah, no, not really.

The axe has been hanging over C4 for some considerable period of time, years in fact. And is nothing to do with some revenge conspiracy theory.

>>Well, yes. I realise putting an honest, competent person in Number 10 might seem a radical idea but I’m up for it.

Hmmm, a lot of the problem when one elects a Labour politician is the bunch of idiots they tend to bring with them. And I'd have to say that whilst my impression is that Starmer is a decent chap I don't believe he has the wherewithal to hold either the Unions or the rest of his Party members in check or within reasonable guidelines. I agree that Starmer himself is better than Johnson, but the rest of them? meh, just different style of crap.


>>Why resort to whataboutery

Not really "whataboutery" when one considers the obvious alternative. Not that I think there's anything wrong with "whataboutery". That's generally and essentially a term used by people who believe that they can only 'win' their argument if they hold it within very narrow lines. It's just a way of deflecting something that they worry they may not be convincing against. Not that I am saying that is your motivation, just generally.

Surely rather more incompetence and self-serving behaviour than *absolute* corruption, and no particular sign of malevolence.

I am most certainly not saying that it is a good Government, but I think you're overdoing the invective.

Has he broken the law? Don't misunderstand me I am not defending him at all, but I wonder what the legal position is.

He has been issued a fixed penalty notice, not been found guilty of breaking the law. If he simply pays the fine, he remains a non-law breaker, or at least unconvicted. If he decides to argue it, it goes to court, and then he loses, he then becomes guilty of breaking the law.

If it's occurred to me, I expect it has occurred to him. Whether or not even he would be brazen enough to rely on it is a secondary point.

I'd quote the "Hostile Environment" and its consequences as an example to substantiate my claims of malevolence, and the current Home Secretary's suggestions to investigate the use of wave machines to push back migrant boats in the Channel.

But fair enough, we can agree to differ. I appreciate you're not conferring support to any arm of the government.

I'm not retired, I post in haste as I'm reasonably busy with work, so I can't quite measure every word and post precisely (also accounts for my typos), so sometimes a blunter choice of word or phrase is deployed to get a point across than would otherwise be the case. However in the case of the current governmnt it's hard to imagine using softer language. They are an utter disgrace and represent an abject humiliation of my country.

It appears to be that case that the PM doesn't respect the rule of law, at least in so far as it applies to him.  He is the first sitting PM to have transgressed in this way.  I accept your point of detail around the FPN, but as he hasn't gone to court to challenge it I'll accept it as an admission of having broken the law, publicly.  This is a sufficient bar, in my opinion, to preclude him from keeping his position in government any longer.  However, if he nor his party act on that moral judgement, then remain he will as our feeble constitution can do nothing to prevent it.  Thoughts then gently turn to "what's next..."