So when will the Met investigate the party?

[SirGalahad]

Finally the evidence is out that there was a party, the Police obviously knew as there are officers at No10 around the clock, the press knew as many attended.

There was even a secret santa.

They partied whilst the public said by to their loved ones on Zoom, no final hug or touch and others could not attend funerals.

This is disgusting. Anyone defending this needs to have a long hard look at themselves in the mirror.

Look at this disgusting Rees Mogg making fun of it all.

https://twitter.com/MarinaPurkiss/status/1468304337097142274

 

[motorbiking]

The reality is, while not very smart given the government advice at the time, It probably wasn’t unlawful. Guidance vs. Law etc. Also No.10 has all sorts of legal exemptions.

 

[Notch7]

This was clearly released deliberately at this time.

However it’s rather convenient for the Tories, because it’s covering up something far more important:


Boris Johnson plans to let ministers throw out legal rulings




Downing Street is to begin a fresh war with judges over a plan to let ministers throw out any legal rulings they do not like.

Boris Johnson wants to further curtail the power of the courts to overrule decisions by ministers through the process of judicial review, The Times has learnt. The move comes after a series of political clashes with judges that started over Brexit




Yup, the Tory party are literally setting themselves above the law.

 

[motorbiking]

We elect MPs not judges. It’s MPs with the scrutiny of the lords, that create legislation. Judges normally, rightly tread carefully when interpreting law created by elected MPs. Sometimes they don’t and MPs amend the law as they desire. Judicial reviews rarely change much and usually cost the public a load of money.

 

[Notch7]

We elect MPs not judges. It’s MPs with the scrutiny of the lords, that create legislation. Judges normally, rightly tread carefully when interpreting law created by elected MPs. Sometimes they don’t and MPs amend the law as they desire. Judicial reviews rarely change much and usually cost the public a load of money.

it is part of this governments endless drive to break democracy and put itself above the law.

1) it prorogued Parliament
2) it lied to the Queen
3) it used Covid emergency legislation to avoid scrutiny of its mass corruption
4) it ignored ministerial code over bullying allegations
5) it tried to bully chair of standards committee
6) it tried to change the rules to protect Paterson corruption
7) it is engaged in gerrymandering boundary changes
8) it is bullying BBC to avoid scrutiny
9) it is introducing legislation to stop protests
10) it wants to end ECHR
11) it’s changing laws to remove protections for refugees
12) it wants to remove independence of the electoral commission.


The assault on democracy is never ending.

 

[Notch7]

“When will they come for me”

 

[SirGalahad]

The reality is, while not very smart given the government advice at the time, It probably wasn’t unlawful. Guidance vs. Law etc. Also No.10 has all sorts of legal exemptions.

Bending the rules and interpretation - must have been one hell of a business meeting with wine, cheese, secret santa and partying.

The optics matter.

 

[Odds]

The optics matter.

The optics always matter at any party...just to keep everyone's spirits up, of course.

 

[SirGalahad]

Power corrupts. The Met needs to be reformed if it wants to keep the trust of the public.

 

[Notch7]

It’s MPs with the scrutiny of the lords

oh come on -Johnson is busy stuffing the Lords with Tories

 

[Notch7]

We elect MPs not judges

thats a horrible strawman

judges are there to uphold the law, if MPs break it, we should expect the the law to have the power to stop them

unless you want rule by decree....which is what is happening in Poland another right wing populist party

 

[motorbiking]

If MPs break the law. Judges have the full authority to punish them, but if a judge misinterprets parliaments intentions or frustrates it, then it’s surely right for the elected law makers to correct it.

every government stuffs the lords with their own, that’s why there are so many of them. I’d support a reduction of both MPs and lords along with making lords elected. It’s a terrible model.

 

[SirGalahad]

If MPs break the law. Judges have the full authority to punish them, but if a judge misinterprets parliaments intentions or frustrates it, then it’s surely right for the elected law makers to correct it.

every government stuffs the lords with their own, that’s why there are so many of them. I’d support a reduction of both MPs and lords along with making lords elected. It’s a terrible model.

Would you support PR and no FPTP?

 

[motorbiking]

I like two types of government:
1. Coalitions where they are constantly on their toes to not screw up
2. Strong majorities who can make bold strategic decisions.

You can argue 1, is a kind of PR I’m not comfortable with PR in general as there is no accountability

 

[SirGalahad]

I like two types of government:
1. Coalitions where they are constantly on their toes to not screw up
2. Strong majorities who can make bold strategic decisions.

You can argue 1, is a kind of PR I’m not comfortable with PR in general as there is no accountability

What accountability is there in a system where your vote doesn't count and one party can rule for decades.

Make big bold bad decisions are very unlikely to be reversed.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There always needs to be a system of checks and balances and having Ministerial rule by diktat is not one.

This is authoritarian. look at the 18 pages ****y Patel added to the Police Bill.

Tell me how is that protecting our democracy and freedoms?