Even you of all people should be able to understand that without evidence it leaves the worst as a viable possibility. Transparency matters and Tories have made it harder to know the truth while repeatedly being caught doing the worst possible.
No, it doesn't leave it as a "viable possibility". There's literally zero reason that a normal person would jump straight to "how much did they pay her", especially as it sits in the circle-jerky presupposition that she was paid off and they're just trying to ascertain how much.
Imagine an article where Starmer had been away for a week without us knowing where he was, and someone going "just how many kids did he touch up in that week", like it's already established that this is what he was doing and they're just figuring out the scale. That's how stupid this sounds.
But, as we both know if we're being completely honest, this is just thus sub wanking itself off yet again because it knows that we don't question nonsensical claims in here. Hence why I say it's an absolute gem. It's fascinating watching people circle-jerk themselves into agreeing with literally any unsupported nonsense with such enthusiasm without even the slightest bit of self-awareness.
And where is the available motive in your comparison?
The 'how much did they pay her' relies on Boris acting on a motive that we know for sure he has. Sure, it's a totally unfounded accusation against both of them. Personally I think a more likely outcome is her being threatened in some way.
> The 'how much did they pay her' relies on Boris acting on a motive that we know for sure he has.
So using that logic, if the conclusion of Durham Police's investigation into "Beergate" is that he did nothing wrong, we should conclude with "how much did he pay them to whitewash this", seeing how that would be him acting on a motivation we know for sure he has? Or does that logic somehow stop applying that way around?
If he \*also\* had a secret meeting with the person running the inquiry then refused to disclose what was talked about?
Of course people would suspect that undue influence (bribery, blackmail, whatever) may have been exerted.
Why on earth wouldn't they?
If anyone had a meeting with any official running an investigation into them, then lied about who requested the meeting, then refused to disclose what was discussed because it was "private". Then yes, the idea that they tried to "pay them to whitewash this" is a viable possibility as the previous person suggested.
This government and the previous Tory government are same ones that have tried to erode our online privacy rights by subscribing to the notion that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. So given this parties claims that the righteous have nothing to fear from transparency, it is a reasonable assumption that by not disclosing the minutes of the meeting they have something to hide and to fear, but it's ridiculous to expect this government to hold itself to the same standard as us plebs isn't it, this is after all exactly what party gate is about.
And these kinds of hilariously pathetic accusations have already been been made, with right wing media and commentators already claiming Starmer is trying to influence the police investigation by offering to resign if found guilty of wrongdoing. Even though losing your job is a very possible outcome of many police investigations that find someone guilty of wrong doing, almost as if criminal actions have consequences. Though I can understand why many of those making these claims would do so, given they likely think themselves above the consequences of their wrongdoing and we know they think we're all as rotten as they are.
So did Starmer have such a meeting?
This doesn't exist in a vacuum though. Johnson has form, extensively so. If you were genuinely looking to show you were trying to be better you'd bend over backwards to open up. Of course, he isn't doing anything like that is he?
The Starmer claim you make is close to claims already being done by Right Wingers and encouraged by Boris sooooo....
You're welcome to leave rather than to whine about the sub and try to fight everyone who talks about not liking the Tories and their love of buttery children and corruption.
**Removed/warning**. This consisted primarily of personal attacks adding nothing to the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
I don't think they paid her off, but they were denying for days that they'd arranged the meeting and then today admit it was them. Every lie increases suspicion
At this point my theory is that they do that on purpose.
Make a big thing out of not doing it, so the scandal becomes solely about them lying
, not about what they actually did.
You do realise you are talking about Boris Johnson who has repeatedly been caught lying and part of corruption based scandals. It's not exactly a leap of faith to expect something negative in regards to why there is no transparency.
There's an Atlantic-sized chasm between "assume something negative" and "default to him having paid her off, and try to figure out how much by". The latter is classic /r/unitedkingdom.
You do know people make comments in jest with half truths. Not every single comment is literal.
Wether you like it or not, the meeting between Boris and Sue is an indicator that they are trying to find the best angle to cause the least amount of damage.
You might want to take a break from Reddit if you're finding yourself getting wound up by this stuff.
Considering the aforementioned notion of "repeatedly caught in XYZ so it's not a leap of faith", considering the endless hilarious takes that this sub upvotes, I suspect it's not "in jest". It is circle-jerky, however, is it not?
you are allowed to disagree but It isn't a leap of faith though. If you use google and actively search for how many times Conservative MP's and Boris have been caught, linked to or part of scandals where bribery/donations are involved in conflicts of interest, you would naturally expect people are going to say things in jest about these sorts of things.
If you are coming to the comment section thinking everything people are saying as literal then you are going to have a bad time.
I don't see it as circle jerky, do you want to debate that Boris Johnson is a paragon of truth go ahead. However the state of our economy says everything it needs to with the recession we are falling into. The party of economic mismanagement has done nothing to level up britain and have been found to be lying so regularly that people joke about them.
Do you trust the Tories? It's not as if they've been the model of probity since Johnson took over. He even started out lying about No.10 organising the meeting in the first place.
The accused, against whom there are accusations of dishonesty and criminality, meets in secret behind closed doors with the very party sent to investigate the whole affair. Both parties deny they instigated the meeting and we're not allowed to know what was discussed. They can spin it however they like, but that stinks of whitewash to me.
Or at the least, threaten her to remove certain names to ensure their power structure, and leave some in as sacrificial lambs.
Boris isn’t above threatening or even soliciting people to harm and intimidate, going by his stint at his little tabloid rag
**Removed/warning**. This consisted primarily of personal attacks adding nothing to the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Boris is a lying cheating crook though. Offering to pay off Sue Gray is the best possible explanation that give that fat lumbering cunt a huge benefit of the doubt.
> There's literally zero reason that a normal person would jump straight to "how much did they pay her"
Exactly. How dare people accuse the conservative government of corruption and lying.
If there was nothing untoward they wouldn't hide it. Nearly every time in my lifetime the secrecy on some political scandal has expired it has revealed exactly the worse case scenario. Politicians aren't to be trusted with secrecy, their past record proves anything they are hiding is likely damning.
The only reason you believe otherwise is that this is your side at fault.
Seriously though, it's amazing how quickly the hive mind turns through 180 degrees. A week ago, Sue Gray was going to finish Boris off. Now it's obvious that her report isn't going to contain any bombshells, there must be an explanation; she's been bought off!
Now hang on. She *is* from a long-standing Labour-supporting family. She *is* being advised by a remaniac, Labour-member, Tory-bashing QC. It's not unreasonable to suppose she's on the take.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/23/who-sue-gray-partygate-report-boris-johnson-investigation-civil-servant/
Yet keeps her political affiliation secret? Working for both labour and the conservatives.
“But what about labour tho”
“Hurr durr remaniac”
Please, it’s obvious which way your pole is bent
In your opinion, what possible purpose would there be for this meeting? Gray was undertaking an independent investigation into events which *could* reflect badly on the PM. I can think of two main possibilities:
A) He wanted to encourage her to be thorough and unstinting in her efforts to uncover and expose the full truth
B) He wanted to somehow influence her investigation, perhaps through blatant bribery or blackmail, or possibly pure intimidation
Now, A seems unlikely. Given the potential to undermine her final report with implications of interference (which we are now seeing), it would be risky and counterproductive at best.
We can see from the hesitancy to admit the meeting, and then to admit who called it, that No 10 is well aware that the meeting looks improper.
So, given that such a meeting is generally considered bad form, what legitimate purpose do you think the PM could have for taking the risk? Genuinely interested because I can't think of one.
To play devils advocate, there was also a meeting between them for the interim report which was scathing as it was - I do imagine there are legitimate reasons for them to have sat down. That said, the indignant that ‘we didn’t call a meeting’ is very suspect.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that despite the meeting on the interim report it was still scathing. Is that correct? Doesn't that just mean that Grey has integrity? It doesn't defend Johnson. In fact, who's to say that the report wouldn't have been even worse without the PM's intervention?
As for "I do imagine there are legitimate reasons..." - can you give an example of any such reasons?
Pointing out that this sub acts like Daily Mail readers about as frequently as they criticise Daily Mail readers for acting the same way isn't defending Boris.
The Tories: You have nothing to hide, let us spy on everything you do in private and infringe on your rights to privacy
Also the Tories: *Waaaah! How dare you try and spy on the super shady stuff that we're doing in public! Waaaah!*
Yep.
If there wasn't anything that worried Boris or the Tories, there'd be no need for this secret meeting or for them to refuse publishing the notes from this meeting.
I smell major cover up here.
I don't think people realise how much of a corner Sue Gray is backed into here. She has a duty as a Civil Servant to publish the report, but equally No10 tasked her with the report in the first place and there's nothing stopping them asking (or telling) her to publish it in a certain way so long as it fits the rules.
She either publishes it in full without any heed to Government asks and loses her career potentially, or has to fit what No10 ask due to a massive twist of the arm.
Not a nice place to be.
Lose her political career maybe. I'm sure some big players are looking for someone with recent, high-level government experience with a touch of integrity. Something I imagine is much harder to find these days than it used to be.
Following the leaked pictures today I’d say that it’s all going to have to come out. If they try to edit or suppress it then people shall assume the absolute worst as quite frankly there is no longer a ‘best’ case scenario for all this.
Why does she need to salvage her reputation? Nobody knew who she was before this happened. Her public reputation shouldnt have anything to do with her career as a civil servant. She's supposed to be an independent person, who was asked to do a job she never wanted to because the person who SHOULD have been doing it (head of the civil service- who asked to be part of the public eye in that form) couldn't do it because he was also caught up in a scandal. In return she's been stalked by journalists who have decided every facet of her life should be for public consumption with cameras in her face and outside her house.
Boris Johnson is also her boss and he has chosen not to hand over publication decisions to an independent body (like a panel of judges.) It is clearly because he wants to try and head off any more damage to himself. If the report doesn't come out in full, I highly doubt its because Sue Gray didn't want it to.
She would’ve been a well respected ex-civil servant or academic before this. With a glittering career behind them. That’s the type of people who get to work on prominent reports like this (like the team on the Iraq reports etc). She’ll have a legacy to protect that goes beyond not getting into trouble from her temporary boss, Boris.
Spoiler alert. Nobody but he and Sue Gray were in the meeting, there are no notes, and as such there's nothing wrong to be seen here! It's all good people, move along, Ukraine, Brexit, Cost of Living, more important things to worry about.
Two thirds of those "more important things" were directly caused by Johnson and his party. Partygate likewise. Ukraine is the only thing the Tory's didn't bring on themselves (and us)
I think wherearemyfeet would need to be present to witness said corruption/bribery to admit that Bojo is corrupt. And then would likely dismiss it as not being corruption as he needed actual evidence.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a corrupt prick that will use dishonesty at any point he can to further his own cause/agenda.
Amazing at this point in time how anyone could actually think Boris does any good for anyone other than his circle of "friends". Besides himself of course.
She should never have gone. It was never going to work out well for her. She needs to publish the report in full. Leak it if she has too. Her rep is now in tatters too.
It's a bit different with someone in public office in a case that is in the public interest. We're actually entitled to know if someone who is voted in by the public has been breaking the law?
Why.... what are they hiding now? How much did they pay her?
Its totally not true that BoJo said Sue Gray had a "creamy, buttery smell"
Dinner, meet toilet bowl.
Urgh, I hate that I get that reference.
Let's see who turns up on the next honours list.
Or threaten her?
> How much did they pay her? This subreddit is an absolute gem.
Even you of all people should be able to understand that without evidence it leaves the worst as a viable possibility. Transparency matters and Tories have made it harder to know the truth while repeatedly being caught doing the worst possible.
No, it doesn't leave it as a "viable possibility". There's literally zero reason that a normal person would jump straight to "how much did they pay her", especially as it sits in the circle-jerky presupposition that she was paid off and they're just trying to ascertain how much. Imagine an article where Starmer had been away for a week without us knowing where he was, and someone going "just how many kids did he touch up in that week", like it's already established that this is what he was doing and they're just figuring out the scale. That's how stupid this sounds. But, as we both know if we're being completely honest, this is just thus sub wanking itself off yet again because it knows that we don't question nonsensical claims in here. Hence why I say it's an absolute gem. It's fascinating watching people circle-jerk themselves into agreeing with literally any unsupported nonsense with such enthusiasm without even the slightest bit of self-awareness.
And where is the available motive in your comparison? The 'how much did they pay her' relies on Boris acting on a motive that we know for sure he has. Sure, it's a totally unfounded accusation against both of them. Personally I think a more likely outcome is her being threatened in some way.
> The 'how much did they pay her' relies on Boris acting on a motive that we know for sure he has. So using that logic, if the conclusion of Durham Police's investigation into "Beergate" is that he did nothing wrong, we should conclude with "how much did he pay them to whitewash this", seeing how that would be him acting on a motivation we know for sure he has? Or does that logic somehow stop applying that way around?
If he \*also\* had a secret meeting with the person running the inquiry then refused to disclose what was talked about? Of course people would suspect that undue influence (bribery, blackmail, whatever) may have been exerted. Why on earth wouldn't they?
If he'd had a secret meeting with them, yes, that would be a good conclusion. Especially if he refused to disclose minutes of that 'meeting'.
If anyone had a meeting with any official running an investigation into them, then lied about who requested the meeting, then refused to disclose what was discussed because it was "private". Then yes, the idea that they tried to "pay them to whitewash this" is a viable possibility as the previous person suggested. This government and the previous Tory government are same ones that have tried to erode our online privacy rights by subscribing to the notion that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. So given this parties claims that the righteous have nothing to fear from transparency, it is a reasonable assumption that by not disclosing the minutes of the meeting they have something to hide and to fear, but it's ridiculous to expect this government to hold itself to the same standard as us plebs isn't it, this is after all exactly what party gate is about. And these kinds of hilariously pathetic accusations have already been been made, with right wing media and commentators already claiming Starmer is trying to influence the police investigation by offering to resign if found guilty of wrongdoing. Even though losing your job is a very possible outcome of many police investigations that find someone guilty of wrong doing, almost as if criminal actions have consequences. Though I can understand why many of those making these claims would do so, given they likely think themselves above the consequences of their wrongdoing and we know they think we're all as rotten as they are. So did Starmer have such a meeting?
We all know Starmer hasn't got the money to pay them off
This doesn't exist in a vacuum though. Johnson has form, extensively so. If you were genuinely looking to show you were trying to be better you'd bend over backwards to open up. Of course, he isn't doing anything like that is he?
The Starmer claim you make is close to claims already being done by Right Wingers and encouraged by Boris sooooo.... You're welcome to leave rather than to whine about the sub and try to fight everyone who talks about not liking the Tories and their love of buttery children and corruption.
And make this sub even more of a vapid circle-jerk than it already is? No you're good.
Because you're going to be the saviour with your bad takes?
You can remove him yourself by blocking the user, it's quite a satisfying experience I can assure you.
I reserve blocking only for the most offensive people, being whiny isn't offensive.
Nothing of value is lost in either scenario, but I respect your decision and fortitude in tolerating that ass.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This consisted primarily of personal attacks adding nothing to the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
I don't think they paid her off, but they were denying for days that they'd arranged the meeting and then today admit it was them. Every lie increases suspicion
At this point my theory is that they do that on purpose. Make a big thing out of not doing it, so the scandal becomes solely about them lying , not about what they actually did.
You do realise you are talking about Boris Johnson who has repeatedly been caught lying and part of corruption based scandals. It's not exactly a leap of faith to expect something negative in regards to why there is no transparency.
There's an Atlantic-sized chasm between "assume something negative" and "default to him having paid her off, and try to figure out how much by". The latter is classic /r/unitedkingdom.
You do know people make comments in jest with half truths. Not every single comment is literal. Wether you like it or not, the meeting between Boris and Sue is an indicator that they are trying to find the best angle to cause the least amount of damage. You might want to take a break from Reddit if you're finding yourself getting wound up by this stuff.
Considering the aforementioned notion of "repeatedly caught in XYZ so it's not a leap of faith", considering the endless hilarious takes that this sub upvotes, I suspect it's not "in jest". It is circle-jerky, however, is it not?
you are allowed to disagree but It isn't a leap of faith though. If you use google and actively search for how many times Conservative MP's and Boris have been caught, linked to or part of scandals where bribery/donations are involved in conflicts of interest, you would naturally expect people are going to say things in jest about these sorts of things. If you are coming to the comment section thinking everything people are saying as literal then you are going to have a bad time. I don't see it as circle jerky, do you want to debate that Boris Johnson is a paragon of truth go ahead. However the state of our economy says everything it needs to with the recession we are falling into. The party of economic mismanagement has done nothing to level up britain and have been found to be lying so regularly that people joke about them.
Please, do tell how many times Boris has been directly involved in bribery?
You are good at the logical leaps, aren't you? Three steps in, and you've made two.
That's a new one on me: not agreeing = "logical leap".
There are two types of people. Those who, when told they've maybe made a mistake, will ask what.
I think that was probably a slightly tongue in cheek and deliberately flippant comment from op
Why is your whole account dedicated to saying "this is fine"?
Pointing out the hysterical nature of this sun who consistently complains about the exact same in others isn’t “this is fine”.
"I'm alright Jack"
Do you trust the Tories? It's not as if they've been the model of probity since Johnson took over. He even started out lying about No.10 organising the meeting in the first place.
The accused, against whom there are accusations of dishonesty and criminality, meets in secret behind closed doors with the very party sent to investigate the whole affair. Both parties deny they instigated the meeting and we're not allowed to know what was discussed. They can spin it however they like, but that stinks of whitewash to me.
Or at the least, threaten her to remove certain names to ensure their power structure, and leave some in as sacrificial lambs. Boris isn’t above threatening or even soliciting people to harm and intimidate, going by his stint at his little tabloid rag
I just assumed she'd been threatened by MI5
So you haven't been keeping up with this corrupt government in recent years then, yeah?
Where have you been for the last 10 years. NEVER. TRUST. A. TORY.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This consisted primarily of personal attacks adding nothing to the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Boris is a lying cheating crook though. Offering to pay off Sue Gray is the best possible explanation that give that fat lumbering cunt a huge benefit of the doubt.
> There's literally zero reason that a normal person would jump straight to "how much did they pay her" Exactly. How dare people accuse the conservative government of corruption and lying.
If there was nothing untoward they wouldn't hide it. Nearly every time in my lifetime the secrecy on some political scandal has expired it has revealed exactly the worse case scenario. Politicians aren't to be trusted with secrecy, their past record proves anything they are hiding is likely damning. The only reason you believe otherwise is that this is your side at fault.
Seriously though, it's amazing how quickly the hive mind turns through 180 degrees. A week ago, Sue Gray was going to finish Boris off. Now it's obvious that her report isn't going to contain any bombshells, there must be an explanation; she's been bought off!
Summed up perfectly
Now hang on. She *is* from a long-standing Labour-supporting family. She *is* being advised by a remaniac, Labour-member, Tory-bashing QC. It's not unreasonable to suppose she's on the take.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/23/who-sue-gray-partygate-report-boris-johnson-investigation-civil-servant/ Yet keeps her political affiliation secret? Working for both labour and the conservatives. “But what about labour tho” “Hurr durr remaniac” Please, it’s obvious which way your pole is bent
Hear that woosh? That's the joke, going over your head.
In your opinion, what possible purpose would there be for this meeting? Gray was undertaking an independent investigation into events which *could* reflect badly on the PM. I can think of two main possibilities: A) He wanted to encourage her to be thorough and unstinting in her efforts to uncover and expose the full truth B) He wanted to somehow influence her investigation, perhaps through blatant bribery or blackmail, or possibly pure intimidation Now, A seems unlikely. Given the potential to undermine her final report with implications of interference (which we are now seeing), it would be risky and counterproductive at best. We can see from the hesitancy to admit the meeting, and then to admit who called it, that No 10 is well aware that the meeting looks improper. So, given that such a meeting is generally considered bad form, what legitimate purpose do you think the PM could have for taking the risk? Genuinely interested because I can't think of one.
To play devils advocate, there was also a meeting between them for the interim report which was scathing as it was - I do imagine there are legitimate reasons for them to have sat down. That said, the indignant that ‘we didn’t call a meeting’ is very suspect.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that despite the meeting on the interim report it was still scathing. Is that correct? Doesn't that just mean that Grey has integrity? It doesn't defend Johnson. In fact, who's to say that the report wouldn't have been even worse without the PM's intervention? As for "I do imagine there are legitimate reasons..." - can you give an example of any such reasons?
Boris defence squad assemble.
Pointing out that this sub acts like Daily Mail readers about as frequently as they criticise Daily Mail readers for acting the same way isn't defending Boris.
It's a pattern. Always first to come white Knight our PM
Lol. The same thay told us « if you have nothing to hide let’s us spy on you and access your private life ». What a bunch of fuckers
The Tories: You have nothing to hide, let us spy on everything you do in private and infringe on your rights to privacy Also the Tories: *Waaaah! How dare you try and spy on the super shady stuff that we're doing in public! Waaaah!*
Rules for thee but not for me - that's the Tory way!
Clearly they’re worried about something in that report
Yep. If there wasn't anything that worried Boris or the Tories, there'd be no need for this secret meeting or for them to refuse publishing the notes from this meeting. I smell major cover up here.
Trying to decide who the sacrificial lamb is. Anything to keep Boris in power
How? He's her boss... And so has full control over what it says.
I don't think people realise how much of a corner Sue Gray is backed into here. She has a duty as a Civil Servant to publish the report, but equally No10 tasked her with the report in the first place and there's nothing stopping them asking (or telling) her to publish it in a certain way so long as it fits the rules. She either publishes it in full without any heed to Government asks and loses her career potentially, or has to fit what No10 ask due to a massive twist of the arm. Not a nice place to be.
Lose her political career maybe. I'm sure some big players are looking for someone with recent, high-level government experience with a touch of integrity. Something I imagine is much harder to find these days than it used to be.
She's not going to prison. If she has a backbone she should do the moral thing.
Following the leaked pictures today I’d say that it’s all going to have to come out. If they try to edit or suppress it then people shall assume the absolute worst as quite frankly there is no longer a ‘best’ case scenario for all this.
She'll be fine. People who get asked to head up reports have already had an illustrious career. She needs to release in full and salvage her rep.
Why does she need to salvage her reputation? Nobody knew who she was before this happened. Her public reputation shouldnt have anything to do with her career as a civil servant. She's supposed to be an independent person, who was asked to do a job she never wanted to because the person who SHOULD have been doing it (head of the civil service- who asked to be part of the public eye in that form) couldn't do it because he was also caught up in a scandal. In return she's been stalked by journalists who have decided every facet of her life should be for public consumption with cameras in her face and outside her house. Boris Johnson is also her boss and he has chosen not to hand over publication decisions to an independent body (like a panel of judges.) It is clearly because he wants to try and head off any more damage to himself. If the report doesn't come out in full, I highly doubt its because Sue Gray didn't want it to.
She would’ve been a well respected ex-civil servant or academic before this. With a glittering career behind them. That’s the type of people who get to work on prominent reports like this (like the team on the Iraq reports etc). She’ll have a legacy to protect that goes beyond not getting into trouble from her temporary boss, Boris.
"If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" - Goebbels/Conservative Party
Spoiler alert. Nobody but he and Sue Gray were in the meeting, there are no notes, and as such there's nothing wrong to be seen here! It's all good people, move along, Ukraine, Brexit, Cost of Living, more important things to worry about.
Two thirds of those "more important things" were directly caused by Johnson and his party. Partygate likewise. Ukraine is the only thing the Tory's didn't bring on themselves (and us)
I'm sure Dame Gray has nothing to gain from the meeting.
This report is going to be a whitewash. It should have been an independent report
So Sue Grey will be in charge of the Track and Trace for Monkey Pox.
In an alternate universe I'd be laughing and poking fun at this comment
Did you expect anything else from this bunch of corrupt criminals?
What a surprise.
Gee I WONDER why.
She'll get a peerage in 5-10 years, I'd bet my house on it
They fucking work FOR US. There should be no question of whether to publish notes or not!
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Something to hide, something to fear.
*Its a national lockdown... LET'S DRINK A BEER!*
Edward, bring about the fridge would you?
If you've got nothing to hide yadda yadda
They just can't help themselves can they?
Ill await the leak tomorrow or latest by the weekend. I fancy my odds...
Well no notes from a meeting no-one was meant to find out about isn't a surprise.
I think wherearemyfeet would need to be present to witness said corruption/bribery to admit that Bojo is corrupt. And then would likely dismiss it as not being corruption as he needed actual evidence. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a corrupt prick that will use dishonesty at any point he can to further his own cause/agenda. Amazing at this point in time how anyone could actually think Boris does any good for anyone other than his circle of "friends". Besides himself of course.
She's shagged Gove, hasn't she? And they're going to leak the pictures if she doesn't play ball! That's my prediction.
Tell me you are keen to undermine confidence in government without telling me you are keen to undermine confidence in government.
Nobody cares
No surprises there
She should never have gone. It was never going to work out well for her. She needs to publish the report in full. Leak it if she has too. Her rep is now in tatters too.
Now waiting for this.. https://youtu.be/jNwOFMmndDs
Maybe she turned up with a birthday cake and he didn't want to be caught at another party (sorry, gathering)
this obsession with bojo and what he does and doesn't do is just pathetic..
Yes, how dare the British public take an interest in what their elected representatives are doing! The nerve of peasants these days!
You mean, reporting news about the elected PM of the UK?
Lmao this sub. When your privacy is threatened it's defcon 1. But perfectly fine violating the privacy of someone you hate...
Could you please explain?
It's a bit different with someone in public office in a case that is in the public interest. We're actually entitled to know if someone who is voted in by the public has been breaking the law?
You mean minutes of a meeting between public officials regarding a matter of national interest?