Mailwatch(ed) Forum

As per Patrick Maguire of The Times:

"Of all the jaw-dropping, hair-raising detail we learn about that No 10 party in this morning’s Times, the revelation that Martin Reynolds regretted inviting 100 people to it but concluded that cancelling would draw more attention to the plan than going ahead has to be the winner. Is this the first time that someone has tried to cover something up by, erm, doing it?"

Chris 'cuntface' Chope on Sky praising the 'umble Johnson.

Beth Rigby somewhat less charitable...

Youngian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:44 am Now Johnson's sacked an ERG nutbag. All she wanted was a Brexit bonus. A brave move, prime minister.

So corruption and sleaze is fine, voting against the government has the whip removed.

Got it

Voxpopcretin Tyrone in Johnson's constituency on Sky.

Johnson has done well, especially dealing with 'omnicrom' but should 'hand on the gauntlet' in the next year now that he has 'done the heavy lifting'.

Tyrone is the reason we can't have nice things...

Watchman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 8:27 am When he does go, I want the full charge sheet; not just the parties, not just the girlies, not just the wallpaper, but everything with his fingerprints - the oligarchs, the PEE scandal, the siphoning of public money to his mates, the malfeasance in public office, the sheer incompetence of his “career”

This PPE?

Use of ‘VIP lane’ to award Covid PPE contracts unlawful, high court rules

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ourt-rules

World At One on Radio 4, finally I've heard a journalist ask the obvious question (and I paraphrase), "Why didn't the police present at Downing St intervene to prevent the illegal party?" The reply, from a Tory whose name I forget, was essentially, "That's not their job."
So, we already know that the police don't act on crimes which happened in the past. Now we learn they don't act on crimes in the present or the future either.
Doesn't that mean we can do whatever we want?

Police as glorified security guards, there to preserve order in their nice clean city centres and chocolate box villages. Everywhere else can go hang. Meanwhile Directive 4 ("No action will be taken against a senior officer of this corporation") is in full effect.

If Jonhson does resign over this it will be pretty amusing to think the one thing that bought him down was a garden party.

I don't think anyone thinks that. If he goes down it will be for breaking the rules - that was very clear in the comments i've read and seen today.

Can't remember where I saw it on Twitter but this might go a ways to explaining why he couldn't burn Cummins for the Barnard Castle debacle, as Classic Dom was well aware of these parties happening.

Why everyone else sat on it for 18 months remains to be seen.

I think it was mentioned on Newsnight last night, James O'Brien definitely raised it on LBC this morning.
Presumably some of them attended the party eg Gove who famously claimed that he also tests his eyesight by going for a sixty mile drive.
It certainly would explain why they were so keen to defend the indefensible for so long.

I wonder if they were waiting for Starmer to show he was the alternative. The start of this was Patterson.

That or some Tories expressed doubts in Johnson after that.

mattomac wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:40 pm I wonder if they were waiting for Starmer to show he was the alternative.

Why would Tories be waiting for Starmer to show he was the alternative? They may not like Cummings, but that doesn't mean they want a Labour government!

Oboogie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:48 pm

mattomac wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:40 pm I wonder if they were waiting for Starmer to show he was the alternative.

Why would Tories be waiting for Starmer to show he was the alternative? They may not like Cummings, but that doesn't mean they want a Labour government!

I meant the media, considering it was the Mirror it helped the pressure remain when he thought he had rode out the storm.

The others like ITV no longer need to pay lip service.

Flicking between Sky News and the BBC News channel for the last hour it looks like the BBC has spent more time on the Prince Andrew story rather than the Johnson story. I do wonder whether or not the Queen consulted Johnson about Prince Andrew's case because in many ways Prince Andrew seems to have behaved in the same way that Johnson would have behaved if he was in the same situation. Toughing it out as long as possible hoping to eventually get off on a technicality.

There seems to be very little Cabinet support emerging for Johnson. Just the fruit-bats and those for whom there would be not a sniff of a job were he to no longer be in post.

Nadine Dorries, a bogus asylum seeker's daughter, and a skinny Pape who flogs abortion pills. Did I miss anyone out?

How come the press didn't know about all this? In May 2020, they knew what was in people's shopping trollies because they sent photographers with telephoto lenses to supermarket car parks to snoop on whether shoppers were really buying essentials. Yet they didn't know what the high profile figures who were making the rules were up to?

We still don't know the invite list.
We don't know if they were invited using the government intranet (.gsi) or not, because they were told to 'clean' their phones. Can't get .gsi on yr iphone.
Were courtiers present at this or any other event?

I think two things are now clear:

1) Why Cummings was defended so vehemently, to the point that Parliamentary procedure was trodden into the dirt
2) Why Starmer has been so reluctant to attack. Give Johnson enough rope and he'll be Labour's biggest asset.