Did he, or didn't he. You can't tell who's lying in government these days. But someone must be.

diy_fun_uk said:
All this sort of stuff can be summed up by something one of my uncles once said, 'it's the unlucky ones that get caught.'

It's true, whether referring to silly little white lies or huge lies with massive implications. Whether someone is doing something very minor or totally heinous.

Btw I'm not asserting what's currently going on with Boris and Lie-Gate isn't serious and he shouldn't face appropriate consequences. Just saying yep, it's the unlucky ones that get caught.
Click to expand...
Isn't the risk of being caught directly proportional to the frequency, and importance of the lies?
For instance if I say I didn't do something which was against the rules, which I laid out, and there is others out there that suspect I did break those rules, several times. Then the motivation for finding out those lies are sufficient to warrant the effort.
 
JohnD said:
"Queen faces end of monarchy as Rees-Mogg sparks UK republic debate"
Click to expand...

Another attempt to grab some news. It will please some, Such items generally do. ;) The Royal Family might even welcome it but then ask yourself what can they actually do. I do remember one expressing an opinion about what was going on at the time and he was told to shut up. He did.
 
Lower said:
No, i don't think it is as deceitful and you're choosing to ignore the differentiation between intervene and agreed.

The specific allegation as i understand it is that the PM actively intervened to get the animals out at the expense of Afghan nationals. The allegation is that Boris willingly sacrificed people's lives to save animals.

What i believe he has denied is his active intervention and that he actively drove through the rescue of the animals over humans.

The 'smoking gun' email that says the PM agreed to the animals being evacuated does not contradict his denial that he intervened in my opinion.

Getting people out wasn't a shortage of planes, it was a shortage of processing capacity for the people wanting to leave.
Click to expand...
I don't think Ben Wallace, who was in charge of the evacuation process would have authorised the evacuation of animals over people, without the PM's approval. I suspect he was too busy to worry about animals. Therefore he must have been bypassed. Therefore someone intervened on behalf of the PM. Either it was the PM, or someone who was recognised as having his authority. That person should be sought and either asked to confirm that Boris authorised the evacuation, or that person exceeded their authority, and used the PM's authority without his express permission. We are talking about a very serious issue here, by a very senior person, which probably cost lives. It's not some minor issue of who authorised a party.
Whoever authorised, approved and allowed that plane could have better spent their time assisting with the evacuation of people. 'Bandwidth', if you like which was misappropriated.
The plane that brought the animals was a private chartered plane, and it was these type of planes that were taking up bandwidth that could have been used by authorised military planes.
 
AngleEyes said:
I don't think Ben Wallace, who was in charge of the evacuation process would have authorised the evacuation of animals over people, without the PM's approval. I suspect he was too busy to worry about animals. Therefore he must have been bypassed. Therefore someone intervened on behalf of the PM. Either it was the PM, or someone who was recognised as having his authority. That person should be sought and either asked to confirm that Boris authorised the evacuation, or that person exceeded their authority, and used the PM's authority without his express permission. We are talking about a very serious issue here, by a very senior person, which probably cost lives. It's not some minor issue of who authorised a party.
Whoever authorised, approved and allowed that plane could have better spent their time assisting with the evacuation of people. 'Bandwidth', if you like which was misappropriated.
The plane that brought the animals was a private chartered plane, and it was these type of planes that were taking up bandwidth that could have been used by authorised military planes.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% that all the time available should have been spent processing people and in my opinion, the question of bringing the animals out should never have made it's way to the PM, if it did.
 
AngleEyes said:
Isn't the risk of being caught directly proportional to the frequency, and importance of the lies?
For instance if I say I didn't do something which was against the rules, which I laid out, and there is others out there that suspect I did break those rules, several times. Then the motivation for finding out those lies are sufficient to warrant the effort.
Click to expand...

Yes, however my point still stands as a basic premise. It is the unlucky ones that get caught, however I of course realise using the word 'unlucky' is subjective depending on what side of the debate you're on and the significance of the lie itself.

If 10 people break into houses one night in the same locale and 1 gets caught by the police, they can consider themselves unlucky in comparison to their counterparts.
 
AngleEyes said:
The plane that brought the animals was a private chartered plane, and it was these type of planes that were taking up bandwidth that could have been used by authorised military planes.
Click to expand...

Pen Farthing was the only passenger, unable to get visas for his staff who later escaped via Pakistan, he offered the 230 seats to the govt on several occasions but was not taken up on his offer.

Pen Farthing: 'I was called disgusting over Kabul animal rescue' - BBC News

As a former Royal Marine, Pen Farthing is used to stressful situations. But the events of the last few months would have pushed anyone to their limits.

Fifteen years ago, he set up the animal shelter Nowzad in Afghanistan, to care for animals suffering the fallout from war.

During the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in August, he realised he needed to urgently get his staff and animals out.

So Mr Farthing, who grew up in Harwich, Essex, launched Operation Ark, a fundraising campaign to charter a plane to transport them to the UK.

He asked the British government for help but Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said he was not going to "prioritise pets over people".

After securing private funds for the plane, he set off for the airport with his staff and crates of cats and dogs.

They were stopped four times by the Taliban on the way to the airport, only to be told on arrival - having narrowly missed being blown up by a suicide bomber - that they could not board without visas.

"I couldn't take my staff as the Taliban put an AK47 in my face and told me they were staying," he tweeted at the time.

The next day, Mr Farthing returned to the airport with the animals alone, and successfully made it out. His staff were able to cross the border to Pakistan in September and later made it to the UK.

"We rescued 94 dogs and 68 cats," he says, talking from his home in Exeter.

"Resettling them is an amazing feeling and so is seeing our staff being resettled - 67 staff have now turned into 69.

"Two of our staff members' wives were pregnant and have now had their little babies, a boy and a girl, so we are truly happy they've now got an opportunity to be raised in the UK, with all the freedoms we take for granted."

However, he is very aware that the mission divided opinion in his home country and he is still dealing with daily online abuse.

"Today I received an email calling me a disgusting human being for putting animals above people," he says, looking defeated.

That narrative was reinforced when a government whistleblower spoke out about the evacuation calling it dysfunctional and chaotic.

Raphael Marshall, who worked as a desk officer in the Foreign Office, said clearance for Operation Ark came "at the direct expense" of thousands of Afghans left behind.

There was "no justification for concluding that Nowzad's staff were at significant risk" from the Taliban, he said.

He said the decision to transport dogs used up capacity, so there was less space at the airport and fewer soldiers available to escort evacuees.

Mr Farthing furiously denies this, insisting no British military resources were used.

He was originally happy that someone else was backing up his comments about the evacuation, about it being a "complete disorganised mess" with thousands of people left behind.

But when he carried on reading the report, he says he felt incredibly upset.

"He has just gone on what he believes happened, which isn't what happened at all. At no time did any British soldiers leave Kabul airport to get me in, I'm dumbfounded that he's said this to Parliament.

"As a charity, how many times do we have to tell people the truth? He said the government transported our animals. We left Kabul on a privately chartered flight, there was no government involvement."

Mr Farthing has also been criticised for leaving on a plane that was empty apart from his animals. He says all of the pets apart from Ewok, his rescue Pomeranian, were in the cargo, where people are not allowed. He says he offered the actual seats to the government "so many times yet they refused".

"We had a flight with space for 230 people and there was just me sat on it. Desperate people needed to leave, it makes me so angry and sad.

"It just doesn't make sense to me and I don't understand how I get that truth out. What do we have to do to get people to understand what went on?"

Mr Farthing also insists the government had no involvement in getting his staff to Pakistan, saying he hired a private security company to get them to safety.

He is excited to see what the future holds for his staff in the UK, but says there is always "that stress in the background".

"The fact is we should be celebrating that 67 people escaped Afghanistan. We managed to save our dogs and cats but it just seems that people don't want to let it go and I just can't get my head around that."

The mission, which cost the charity about £500,000, drew the attention of the charity commission, which sent Nowzad a letter about the funding arrangements, but Mr Farthing says it was blown out of proportion.

"They just asked us to clarify what Operation Ark was, which we did and they wrote back saying 'that's absolutely fine, no problems at all'."

A spokesperson for the Charity Commission said: "We continue to engage with the trustees of Nowzad, over the charity's governance, including trustee decision-making, and the charity's purpose and future direction.

"The trustees are co-operating with us."
 
diy_fun_uk said:
Yes, however my point still stands as a basic premise. It is the unlucky ones that get caught, however I of course realise using the word 'unlucky' is subjective depending on what side of the debate you're on and the significance of the lie itself.

If 10 people break into houses one night in the same locale and 1 gets caught by the police, they can consider themselves unlucky in comparison to their counterparts.
Click to expand...
Using your analogy, if ten people break into houses, 9 of them take petty stuff, like TVs, paste jewelry, etc, but the tenth one gets away with thousands of pounds worth of stuff including the family car which might be used in further crime, then it stands to reason that the tenth burglary will be more thoroughly investigated than the other nine. That's not about luck.
It's the seriousness of the offence that warrants further investigation.
And when the PM is thought to be lying, and contradicting his own advice, never mind committing an offence, it stands to reason it deserves a full investigation.
 
fillyboy said:
Pen Farthing was the only passenger, unable to get visas for his staff who later escaped via Pakistan, he offered the 230 seats to the govt on several occasions but was not taken up on his offer.
Click to expand...
Apart form the fact the he was still using up bandwidth that could have been better used to evacuate people, you reckon the foreign office was telling lies, and the PM wasn't? That some senior person in the FO claimed to have the authority of the PM for this airplane? That the Defence Department had the opportunity to evacuate a further 230 people, and turned it down?
Sounds like a government in utter chaos to me.
 
AngleEyes said:
Using your analogy, if ten people break into houses, 9 of them take petty stuff, like TVs, paste jewelry, etc, but the tenth one gets away with thousands of pounds worth of stuff including the family car which might be used in further crime, then it stands to reason that the tenth burglary will be more thoroughly investigated than the other nine. That's not about luck.
It's the seriousness of the offence that warrants further investigation.
And when the PM is thought to be lying, and contradicting his own advice, never mind committing an offence, it stands to reason it deserves a full investigation.
Click to expand...
Assuming the police have no real crimes or crimes of a more important nature to investigate. Crimes like murder , rape , etc.
Or should the police direct all resources to this piddling little issue because it offends you.
You and your cronies on here only feel so hard done by because Boris has hoodwinked you on everything including covid.
 
Boris Johnson has rejected claims that he authorised the evacuation of animals from Afghanistan during the fall of Kabul last year.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60155840​
That's good enough for me, it means he probably did and is lying again.
Or maybe he did, but he didn't realise it at the time. :ROFLMAO:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top