Forum Topic

Starker /Carrie

Do you agree with Starmer demanding that  Carrie should be publicly named IF she is fined for breaking the Covid code ?

John Southey ● 1636d88 Comments

In the interests of equality and fairness John, do you think think that anyone issued with a FPN/PCN should be publicly named ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1636d

Why not name everybody who gets a fine? Ordinary members of the public weren't given any anonymity, I seem to remember Rita Ora getting into trouble for holding a party and it being all over the media.

Vanessa Smith ● 1636d

Lorraine, to answer your question, I do not see any point in publishing names of people caught i by t money raising PCN’s.  I would, however, be interested in your answer to my question.

John Southey ● 1636d

Surely it's  everyone or no-one  Cherry picking shouldn't be an option

Loraine Pemberton ● 1636d

Carrie is relevant because it would rather undermine Johnson's "Work Event" excuse to Parliament.

Paul Scullion ● 1636d

Paul, see my reply of today 17.06 hours.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1636d

You haven't answered the question as asked Loraine - you've answered a different question.Bearing in mind what you wrote at 17.06, where you seem to be saying that you should treat people equally, do you think that the details of anyone who's received a FPN should be made public?

Andrew Jones ● 1636d

And yet, Loraine, on another thread you condone violence against one person, but not others. Cherry picking, yes? Not to mention normalising violence but that's a different discussion altogether.

David Lesniak ● 1636d

In answer to your question J.Southey: No.People who commit minor misdemeanors should not have their names plastered all over the news, as happens in that sterile state, Singapore.Nobody goes through life without blemishes: even Theresa May once ran through a wheatfield of her own admission.

Denis I. Fox ● 1636d

Good point.  The press named and shamed.  The PM and Government set the rules, they have been broken, as they should be named in these circumstances.

Jonathan Mabbutt ● 1636d

Carrie was I seem to remember at the event in the Downing Street Garden where they were pictured with wine and cheese. Boris says this was a work event. The excuse for not naming her, if fined, is that she is not a minister or civil servant; one wonders in what capacity she was there. If she takes part in work meetings she should be named, if not not. These parties were a particularly egregious breach of trust and everyone fined should be named in the public interest.

Christopher Shea ● 1636d

They’re talking about £50 fines  How much have the various investigations cost?

Maggie Dodge ● 1636d

Probably should not be named. But it would be impressive if she  owned up and apologised  but it would take an honourable person in the public eye to do that so let’s not hold our breath.

Stewart Jones ● 1636d

And there was I thinking some pics of Carrie starkers had surfaced ;-)

Richard Greenhough ● 1636d

There was no anonymity for members of the public and some received large fines. So there shouldn’t be any protection from naming for politicians or civil servants who receive these fines. I thought breaking the covid rules was a criminal offence or was that only for ordinary members of the public?

David Turner ● 1636d

´Something must be found, first, to restore women’s desire to be married. That means addressing the feebleness of the modern Briton, his reluctance or inability to take control of his woman and be head of a household’The words of Johnson himself. The head of the No 10  household letting his wife break the law. Such lack of control.

Stewart Jones ● 1636d

We really must stop this hanging in the village square mentality it is incredibly divisive in society. Everyone is entitled to a private life the challenge is media whipping up stories and then watch the pack go for blood. It is really distasteful so the answer is absolutely not, Carrie is entitled to privacy it really doesn’t matter who she is married too. I recall Cherie Blair had some very dubious property dealing, it’s none of our business. Those that want blood need to get a life and leave others alone.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1636d

No. it's only divisive because people like you, Jayne, have a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of the most dishonest and corrupt administration seen in our lifetime.

Robert Fish ● 1636d

I disagree it’s people like you who want blood, pretty disgusting human behaviour, you sit in judgement without knowing the facts, that’s called a bully…..

Jayne Thorburn ● 1636d

Rubbish, or piffle, as the "bullied one" might say! Since when has expression of disapproval of contemptible behaviour constituted bullying? Where's the victim? Is Johnson a curtain twitcher on this forum? Might he feel wounded by all these expressions of outrage? I don't want blood - I merely want honesty and decency in public life. We have enough facts, without waiting for a police decision on Coronavirus FPNs, to realise that our Prime Minister has consistently lied to parliament and the country. You, Jayne, are a shameful apologist for this appalling man. You know the facts, but you won't admit them.

Robert Fish ● 1636d

He's the same as all of them they are only allowed to say so much,Whatever is said by a Tory will be attacked by supporters of others,it's boring.

Janice Evans ● 1635d

And yet, Jayne, I'm gonna guess you don't know the facts better/worse than anyone else. You judge. But others cannot. Message received loud and clear.

David Lesniak ● 1635d

Everything they do is within the public interest if they are a politician.  If they are the PM that goes for their families too.  So if anyone is named and shamed then all of them should be.  The Blair's had every aspect of their lives scrutinized and so should we be able to do with anyone running the country.  Otherwise they could literally get away with murder.  Although it does seem to me rather as we have lost the ability to see a lying conniving incompetent embarrassing arse when they are directly in front of us

Caroline Carney ● 1634d

Our PM:- made rules about lockdown and no social gatherings- was quite happy to let those working at No.10 break these rules on multiple occasions- attended a number of these social gatherings himself- also attended by interior designer and PM's wife- some those working at No.10 declined invites to such gatherings as they could see these were plain wrong- the PM stated publicly that no such parties happened (a lie)- stated publicly that if any such events did happen then everyone adhered to the guidelines (a lie)- stated publicly that he did not attend any of these parties (a lie)- stated publicly that these were not parties but were work events (a lie) The people in the UK (of course with exceptions)- adhered to the rules- were unable to visit sick loved ones in hospital- were unable to visit lonely and isolated relatives- were unable to attend funerals of loved ones- did not celebrate birthdays or anything elseI am unable to understand why there is not nationwide shock that he remains the PM. He lied to us and he lied to the house of commons. It is plain as day that he broke the rules, broke the law and lied repeatedly. I feel sorry for Tory party supporters who have to defend him and pretend there is nothing to be ashamed of. His actions were shameful (especially the lying) and everyone should be ashamed of him. If you are not then your judgement is seriously flawed as you are endorsing lying to the house.

Alan Clark ● 1634d

Far too long winded and boring.!

James Dow ● 1634d

Very easy to read through quickly I thought

Maggie Dodge ● 1634d

And true, but there's some who just don't want to hear it.

Vanessa Smith ● 1634d

Exactly, Vanessa.  ‘Boring’ on this forum often means ‘maybe true but I refuse to face up to it or discuss it’.

Alastair Banton ● 1634d

Well posted Alan.

Jim Lawes ● 1634d

Alan there were no rules as far as I can remember for the workplace.

Janice Evans ● 1634d

I'm afraid your recollection is wrong, Janice. The rules applied to all sorts of gatherings, except that there was an exception for a gathering "reasonably necessary for work purposes". Christmas parties, cheese and wine parties, quizzes or leaving bashes are not reasonably necessary for work purposes.

Robert Fish ● 1634d

Their seems to be more,ToryBoring than Labour boring,On this Fora.?

James Dow ● 1634d

Their seems to be more,ToryBoring than Labour boring,On this Fora.?

James Dow ● 1634d

Be careful. or you'll attract censure from the grammar police (or perhaps not, if you're lucky, given that it's a Latin error)!

Robert Fish ● 1634d

Maybe Robert, I was thinking of Canteens etc., which were allowed tocontinue to serve at workplaces.

Janice Evans ● 1633d

I would assume staff were working in Downing Street offices throughout the pandemic unlike the majority working from home, so were in a bubble, presumably daily testing. It isn’t unreasonable for colleagues to say farewell in my view.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1633d

'It isn’t unreasonable for colleagues to say farewell in my view.'Neither would it have been 'unreasonable' for people to visit sick and dying relations or attend funerals would it?

Vanessa Smith ● 1633d

Quite right, Vanessa. If they had been visiting sick or dying relatives, there would have been no celebration with alcohol, and thus no need to remove masks.

Robert Fish ● 1633d

Really bad comparison old,  vulnerable  people who were at high risk absolutely needed to be protected. We are talking about young people working around the clock to manage the pandemic who were at low risky of serious illness, working together in a bubble completely different situation.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1633d

I finished writing the below before reading Vanessa's post, but it echoes what she said.I would have said it wasn't unreasonable for people to be able to say farewell in person to their dying relatives in hospital, but it wasn't allowed. We have had plenty of people leaving where I work (and I have been going to work throughout the whole pandemic) and they are still waiting for their leaving do to happen.Yes there are more important things to worry about, but to me those people who were attending work parties in Downing Street were brazenly showing contempt for the law and quite possibly contempt for the sacrifices that most people in the country were making.

Andrew Jones ● 1633d

There was no need to protect people who were already dying Jayne. Such visits could have been accommodated without putting others at risk.

Andrew Jones ● 1633d

Rees-Mogg dismissed Partygate as mere ‘fluff’ this morning..So all those people who have not forgotten saying goodbye to loved ones in an ambulance or on FaceTime, basically, get over it. Rees-Mogg et all are far too busy to be bothered about you and your fluffy concerns.Johnson first denied there were parties, then said they were within the rules (although as they never took place how would he know) . Naming his wife is neither here nor there. What is important is that Johnson lied. And as we know, not for the first time.He partied on.  He laughs at us all. He is, as Eddie Mair said to his face, a nasty piece of work.

Stewart Jones ● 1633d

Disagree, I don’t think Boris was laughing at everyone, he nearly died so completely got the seriousness of Covid. His staff on the other hand should have been more respectful. It was impossible to allow people into hospital to visit sick relatives, yes extremely sad but hospitals could not cope with all the screening that would have been needed and there is no space to separate patients. Just think through logistics, even our airports were struggling. All our staff worked from home, even when restrictions were lifted we all decided not to socialise to protect each other. I do understand some government departments had to work around the clock in a bubble given the desperate situation so I can understand some of them not all deciding to have a drink together. It is hardly a hanging offence.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1633d

We can be very confident that people outside of No.10 held parties when they were supposed to be in lockdown. Lots of rule breaking went on. We can guess that people who continued to work together (again, outside of No.10) had a drink with colleagues in the office (although many work places strictly prohibit alcohol at any time). So the notion that this fury is about some people getting caught out is about more than criticizing a leaving party.First, it was parties (plural) by people who were at the very centre of policy making. No-one expects perfection but we do expect a degree of awareness and decency. None was shown. The attitude clearly "you must not socialise, but we can do as we like".Second, this p**s poor explanation of "oh, it was just a little bye bye party" does not hold water. Why was the interior designer there? Why was non-work people like the PM's wife there? Plus, if all these parties were leaving bashes then No.10 clearly has a high staff turnover (something to do with how badly run the place is?)Lastly, the fury is because of the pathetic and continued lying. Lies built on lies. Lies in place of lies that did not work. It is not just the fact Johnson lied to everyone, its the fact he doesn't care. He glibly lies, notes that lie isn't working, so pitches out another lie. In short, he takes us for fools. And has no sense of what doing the right thing might be.So please do not excuse this as fluff or normal, allowable behavior.

Alan Clark ● 1633d

Yesterday's criticism: "you sit in judgement without knowing the facts". A day later you know all the facts, and those facts lead to exoneration in your view. How surprising!

Robert Fish ● 1633d

Whether or not you are a supporter of the Monarchy - it is above all else telling, that The Queen and her family followed all the rules - when they could easily have made all the excuses under the sun when the Duke of Edinburgh died. So I ask what's so bloody special about the civil servants and government people in no. 10? - not to mention all the medical staff and volunteers and teachers and emergency services and supermarket workers, lorry drivers etc. who worked throughout lockdown. As for all this total b****cks about Johnson being given the 'wrong information' - what sort of a fu***wit needs to be told what constitutes a bloody party for Christ's sake? If he's that sodding dim he shouldn't be allowed out without his equally odious father.

Vanessa Smith ● 1633d

Jayne, I agree with some of what you said, Boris certainly got the seriousness of Covid after he nearly died from it.And yes it's hardly a hanging offence, but bottom line for me is that their judgement should have been a lot, lot better. Particularly after the spectacle of Dominic Cummings and his ridiculous explanations about the trip to Castle Barnard.  What annoyed me about that wasn't so much the trip itself, but the way everyone tried to make excuses and say nothing wrong was done. Just like the drinks parties at Downing Street.It just looks (to me) like those in No.10 thought it was one rule for us and another for everyone else.

Andrew Jones ● 1633d

It's possible others who had to work in NHS etc., also had a few gettogethers, also some were outside garden areas and no risk to anyone.

Janice Evans ● 1633d

And you know this how? Evidence not p*sspoor excuses for your idol Johnson are needed.

Vanessa Smith ● 1633d

It is truly awful that two Tory supporters on this forum are making poor attempts to normalise parties during lockdown. This aim of making such parties look normal and of little consequence is to reduce the awfulness of Johnson's lying. It does not work and just makes these two look very very pathetic. They would be much better to stay quiet or to acknowledge that lies have been made.

Alan Clark ● 1633d

I said it's possible Vanessa, they are hardly likely to say.

Janice Evans ● 1633d

Alan your attempts to keep us quit will never happen, we all have an opinion and you say nothing about the Labour pub visits at that time.

Janice Evans ● 1633d

It's also possible one day you'll join the rest of us on planet Earth one day. More chance of coming up on the Lottery than Johnson telling the truth.

Vanessa Smith ● 1633d

Janice, are there no limits to the absurdity of your defence of this rotten, dishonest PM and his acolytes? What is the relevance of Labour pub visits? I'm sure that if Keir Starmer had been in contravention of Coronavirus regulations, we'd have known all about it from the Mail, Express or Telegraph. But even if he were, it's not comparable. We're talking about dishonesty in GOVERNMENT (not shouting, just emphasis), and he wasn't and isn't in government. You're just throwing dust in the air to obscure the sins of your idol. And if the various offences were minor (fluff!) why did Johnson lie so persistently about them?

Robert Fish ● 1633d

Is it that relevant whether or not Carrie Symonds is named? Any fixed penalty notice she receives will almost definitely relate to the party held in the Downing Street flat on the night of 13 November 2020. This was the one held to celebrate the sacking of her arch-rival Dominic Cummings and when Abba was heard playing loudly across Whitehall.While a mealy mouthed defence can be made of a lot of the other events which were investigated, this was unambiguously a party and unambiguously in breach of the rules prevailing at the time. Boris Johnson has not denied being at home that night and, as he has specified the occasions when he was away when other parties occurred, it must be assumed that he was there.Given these facts, can somebody explain to me the set of circumstances that could arise in which Johnson doesn't get a fixed penalty notice? Can someone also explain to me why this wouldn't provide undeniable evidence that he has consistently lied in the house including making a categoric statement in the House of Commons?

Felicity Caborn ● 1633d

As he lives there, difficult eh.

Janice Evans ● 1633d

Precisely. I just can't see any way out for him. The notion that he is being kept on because of the situation in Ukraine is transparent nonsense. It doesn't really make that much difference to the situation who is PM here. There has probably been a truce between the various candidates to let him carry he can for the May elections and start the contest then. If he had any dignity he would resign as soon as the news breaks about the fixed penalty notice.

Felicity Caborn ● 1633d

Whatever party you support, when a PM undermines the rule of law, everyone should be up in arms. That is what Johnson has done. He created rules and then exempted himself and his friends from those rules. He is the PM. He sets the tone. People directly accountable to him had parties because he created a culture where if you can get away with it, then do it because that’s how he has lived his life.And the sad thing is that even when he’s found out (affairs, lies, dubious parties, mysogyny, homophobia, racism) people leap to his defence because of some misplaced loyalty to a party leader. Thatcher would have hated him for the lazy, arrogant man that he is. But she would have despaired at what he’s done to the Tory party.

Stewart Jones ● 1633d

Whatever Party you support, so it's o.k for Labour's K.S to visit pubs. It should be the same for all then shouldn't it.

Janice Evans ● 1633d

Boris is blaming misinformation, snout the rules,  from one of his team. I thought ignorance was no defence !

Maggie Dodge ● 1633d

It would absolutely not be okay for any elected politician or senior civil servant to have breached the rules. I don't believe Boris is claiming ignorance of the rules any more but there is no nuance about the event on 13 November as it clearly was a party and nobody advised him that it was okay. The only remaining question is - was he there?

Felicity Caborn ● 1633d

No, Janice it’s not ok. So , now it’s your turn to say it’s not ok for Johnson and the Tories.You won’t because ....

Stewart Jones ● 1633d

If Starmer makes a pre-arranged visit to a pub during election campaigning or has a beer in a food break at a constituency office during a full day of work, that's very different from attending a leaving party, a Christmas party, a birthday party, a quiz night, a bring-your-own booze party or a supposed work discussion at which Mrs Johnson was present. There's a pattern of behaviour here. As usual, Janice, you bring a partisan element to the discussion. When your idol is found bang-to-rights, you feel duty bound to sling mud at the opposition. Johnson's culpability is all the greater because he goes from one lie to another to try and shrug off responsibility. He is by a long way the most dishonest and dishonourable Prime Minister we've had in my lifetime (and that's quite a few years, I can tell you!).

Robert Fish ● 1633d

Evans claims that I want her to stop posting. That is not true and nothing in my post suggests that. She either can't understand simple messages or intentionally aims to present herself as the victim. Pathetic.What I specifically asked for was for people to not try to make illegal events seem normal. So what follows? Evans pitches in with claims about Starmer also going to an event. See, she hints, everyone was doing it. It was normal.You can see what I mean about pathetic. Especially as I was very clear that the issue with Johnson was not going to such parties but serially lying about it.Ms Evans, please put the spade to one side and stop digging.

Alan Clark ● 1633d

Interesting that you think it’s OK to talk about ‘party gate’ with absolutely no regard to what really happened, the police are investigation, we live in a democracy when in document until proven guilty. In my world Ukraine and the energy crisis, is worth talking about because we at least know some of the facts, thank god we don’t know the whole story it I terrifying  what is being reported, mass graves,  rape, murder innocent civilians. Thank god Boris is stepping up and galvanising the world far more important to discuss than some drinks.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1633d

Pathetic,!

James Dow ● 1633d

Jayne, your intention as a shameless apologist for this most dishonourable of governments is obvious for all to see. In the grand scheme of things the war in Ukraine is much more immediately important than "partygate", but it's beyond our reach. We can offer help, charity, homes and weapons but we are powerless to stop it. What we can do is hold dishonest and irresponsible politicians to account, to make sure we don't end up with a similarly Orwellian society as currently prevails in Russia. Johnson has been one of the great destroyers of our democracy with his attacks on the constitution (prorogation of parliament and criticism of the judiciary) and his corruption, and above all with his dishonesty. He has made a successful career (if success may be defined as getting to the top) by his thoorough and consistent mendacity. We mustn't let Britain become a place where this is the new norm.

Robert Fish ● 1633d

Only this morning,  Jacob Rees-Mogg was saying Boris was claiming he was wrongly advised about the rules

Maggie Dodge ● 1633d

Let’s agree to disagree, I don’t think party gate is worth even talking about, we don’t know the facts and I don’t expect our PM to be an office manager. I mentioned earlier the staff working at number 10 showed no respect and should leave. In the big scheme of life Ukraine, energy, cost of living which is happening across the world is far more important. I don’t hate Boris which clearly based your comments you do…..find something more positive in your life

Jayne Thorburn ● 1633d

Galvanising the world....?He couldn’t galvanise a bucket.Jayne, seriously. Tell us which countries in the world are looking at Johnson and are inspired by him.We can’t even waiver visas for desperate people. Undermining the rule of law means little to you, obviously.He had a few drinks at a party while people were dying. You know that is wrong.

Stewart Jones ● 1633d

Then blame the others who were doing the same, just because you hate Boris you ignore what others were doing, just no right.

Janice Evans ● 1633d

Stewart there is no question that he has lead the western world re Ukraine, sanctions, providing equipment and humanitarian aid. I get you hate him and love Labour thankfully we live in a democracy and your vote counts so good luck voting Karmer in, then let’s see how that one works out!

Jayne Thorburn ● 1633d

Jayne. You say let’s agree to disagree and then relaunch your position that it’s not an argument worthy of discussion yet you have contributed hugely. And then finish with a very passive/aggressive comment about finding something positive in my life. Find something more worthy in yours than a slavish devotion to a party whose values have declined since you embraced it thirty or forty years ago. You assume, because of lack of imagination, that I am a devoted Labour supporter. You are wrong. I think honesty and fairness are fundamental and that pursuing them is a positive way to spend a very small part of one’s life on a local forum.. I thought you would share such values. Evidently not.

Stewart Jones ● 1633d

Janice, sorry, no idea what you’re on about

Stewart Jones ● 1633d

Rubbish.  Any other person in the UK  Any member of Parliament suddenly made PM would be able to muster the effort to support Ukraine.  There is nothing Johnson has achieved that is personal to him: he just (unfortunately) is PM.

Vivienne Cox ● 1633d

Isn’t the point that, the rules came from No 10. Regardless of who else broke them, and people got fined for meeting one person outside for a coffee. The people who set the rules should set the example. Others who did get fined, were not allowed to make excuses.

Maggie Dodge ● 1633d

oh this is dismal deflection. I can't find a sensible response to Johnson's constant lying so I'll find a bigger issue. Hey deary, I understand they are killing puppies somewhere - why not deflect to that? Pathetic deflection is the act of the desparate.

Alan Clark ● 1633d

Exactly - and can we keep on topic here. So please stop pretending an excuse is any p**s poor effort by Johnson to stop the war in Ukraine. That is on other threads. This thread is about the PM being a liar.

Alan Clark ● 1633d

The police seem to be upping the tension on this gripping saga with a gradual reveal of the full plot. The latest fines appear to be for the leaving party for the person responsible for drawing up the Covid regulations which you couldn't really make up.The jeopardy is slightly spoiled in that we know the ending already. There was a party in the Downing Street flat on 13 November 2020 and Johnson was there and therefore has being lying about this all along.His cabinet colleagues must be aware of this already so it seems to defy all logic that he is still PM. However, it is probably worth bearing in mind that circumstances have consistently conspired to keep this woefully inadequate individual in positions of power. It is probably worth considering how this will be yet another seemingly impossible corner he gets out of.We are all assuming the leadership contest begins after the May elections. But what if the Tories do better than expected? From our perspective we presume they are going to be hammered and, in London, they will be. They look set to lose Wandsworth and probably many of their seats here in Chiswick.However, they may do better in the north and midlands. Despite the crunching impact of the cost of living crisis, many people are feeling better off because of rising property prices there and that may cushion the losses they experience in local council elections. The 'Red Wall' MPs form an important bloc within the Tory party and if think Johnson is, bizarrely, their best hope of holding on they might rally to him. If Johnson then ramps up the rhetoric on Northern Ireland he could bring the Brexit nutters on board as well. Combine this with all the MPs who have been given cabinet positions despite their complete lack of suitability and who would lose the perks of office under another leader, he may be able to cobble together enough MPs to defeat a vote of no confidence.All this seems unlikely now but consider all the things that have had to fall into place to deliver us this dishonest buffoon as our leader.

Francis Rowe ● 1632d

The point is to win fairly and throwing mud never gains points for those pushing the button.

Janice Evans ● 1632d

A former Tory MP is quoted this morning as advising Johnson to come clean and throw transparency on 'partygate' as failure to do so will just mean the 'drip drip' of allegations and lack of owning up to who has been fined will just keep this going on and on. And while that happens it will stay in the public's mind and not go away regardless of what else is going on. And regardless of the sad apologists on here too.

Vanessa Smith ● 1632d

thats how you would like it to be Vanessa.

Janice Evans ● 1632d

It’s hard to believe Johnson would come clean on his police questionnaire, but others may have done in order to get it over and pay the fine. These answers would be confidential. So the police would be looking at a mismatch of responses but clear evidence of parties.

Vivienne Cox ● 1632d

There are people with legal expertise on this forum who will know for sure but I think I am correct in saying that if Johnson made a statement that was verifiably false on his police questionnaire, he would be liable to criminal prosecution. There will be plenty of other evidence to confirm that he was in his flat when the party was taking place. He is experienced enough at lying to know when you should avoid doing it. He therefore will be obliged to confirm that he has breached Covid rules. The question now must be whether it is a matter of just issuing him with a Fixed Penalty Notice or whether it is considered such a serious breach of the law that he is tried for the offence of Misconduct in a Public Office which might even result in him going to prison.

Francis Rowe ● 1632d

I think what Boris has learned, is that if you hold on long enough, then it all goes away, eventually.  It may get brought up now and again but not enough to harm him.  Look at the allegations against Stanley, inappropriate touching, did that ever go anywhere? Either Boris taught Stanley, or was it the other way round, seems to work for them.

Maggie Dodge ● 1632d

It may be that many things from his past are about to catch up with him. Being a sitting Prime Minister doesn't exactly give you immunity from prosecution but does raise the bar significantly for what the police and the CPS would be prepared to act on. Once he is out of government things like the Jennifer Arcuri case are likely to be looked at again.

Mark Evans ● 1632d

'thats how you would like it to be Vanessa.'You really aren't thinking this through - are you? I don't give a sh*t if Boris lies, backtracks and denies and generally sticks his head up his rear - because the longer he does do that the worse it will be for him, and the more people will dig and expose that shower for the a***holes they are.

Vanessa Smith ● 1632d

We’ll see in due course Mark

Maggie Dodge ● 1632d