|
Post by toppercorner on Jun 20, 2022 19:52:41 GMT
wonder what the real excuse is?
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jun 20, 2022 19:53:02 GMT
Luciana Berger was made a shadow cabinet minister before resigning over Brexit: Not sure who else was Jewish or not, as I'm not sure if any of the current cabinet are Jewish? IF you cant name one you certainly dont know your politics just think who was leader before corbin also should it matter at all I was referring to the cabinet in government not the shadow cabinet. Obviously I know Ed Miliband is Jewish when the media slaughtered his father in articles that included antisemitic tropes I remember Margaret Hodge going on a load of programmes to defend him and his character. Sorry not Margaret Hodge I meant Jeremy Corbyn……
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jun 20, 2022 19:57:54 GMT
Usual suspects seem to have gone missing That or they’ve just forgotten to post About the racist lammy forgetting to declare his earnings in time ill raise you 1 bonking boris one bonking hancock and a gove sitting in a tree some of us do have lives and in whose opinion is he racist yours lol says more about you than him
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jun 20, 2022 20:00:51 GMT
IF you cant name one you certainly dont know your politics just think who was leader before corbin also should it matter at all I was referring to the cabinet in government not the shadow cabinet. Obviously I know Ed Miliband is Jewish when the media slaughtered his father in articles that included antisemitic tropes I remember Margaret Hodge going on a load of programmes to defend him and his character. Sorry not Margaret Hodge I meant Jeremy Corbyn…… Sorry misunderstood
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 20, 2022 20:06:41 GMT
When in doubt you just tell lies Your original source for the rebuttal Dan Hoges is now saying he has independently verified the story IS TRUE from 2 independent sources The "Denials" in the Independent are typical "Non Denials" from an "unnamed spokesman" Not that it's too relevant but Walters Story was an expansion of Ashcroft's I'm sorry to disturb your sensibilities but how would you characterise a woman who accepts financial gain in return for sexual favours? Her brief period "Advising" Zac Goldsmith was followed by her appointment to Tory Ceentral She was asked to leave that position because of incompetence and excessive expenses as reported by your Holy Bible the Daily Fail www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7230155/amp/Boris-Johnsons-girlfriend-Carrie-Symonds-quit-job-Conservative-Party-expenses-claims.htmlBesides being a breach of the Ministerial Code what on earth gives you the impression she was in any way competent Some speculate that she has continued to "Advise" Zac Goldsmith, I couldn't possibly comment No Hodges was the original source to prove there was no cover up and as I mentioned offered the possibility the story was pulled because it wasn't exclusive as claimed and seemed to be rehashing parts of a book serialisation the times didn't pay for. A spokesman for Ms Johnson send the claims were untrue hows that a non denial denial seems a pretty straight up denial. I have not actually passed a comment on the substance of the story as I really couldn't care one way or another. I have no idea on how she advanced in her career but you can try and be a smartarse all you like it still doesn't hide your vile misogyny. Hodges is a stooge Why don't you just read directly what Walters is on the record as saying I stand by the story 100 per cent,” Walters told me. “I was in lengthy and detailed communication with No 10 at a high level, Ben Gascoigne and Mrs Johnson’s spokeswoman for up to 48 hours before the paper went to press. At no point did any of them offer an on-the-record denial of any element of the story.”
The award-winning political journalist adds: “Nor have any of these three offered an on-the-record denial to me since. No 10 and Mr Gascoigne did not deny it off-the-record either.” Ben Gascoigne who was previously with Boris at Foreign Office and now No 10 could clear this up immediately if he wanted to he certainly doesn't seem to want to go on the record if you read above The allegation is that Gascoigne was the one who vetoed Carrie's job because he was the one who witnessed Boris being assaulted not by a Cake but Creampie
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jun 20, 2022 20:11:44 GMT
Usual suspects seem to have gone missing That or they’ve just forgotten to post About the racist lammy forgetting to declare his earnings in time ill raise you 1 bonking boris one bonking hancock and a gove sitting in a tree some of us do have lives and in whose opinion is he racist yours lol says more about you than him Care to enlighten me on what it says about me I’m all ears
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 20, 2022 20:37:24 GMT
Usual suspects seem to have gone missing That or they’ve just forgotten to post About the racist lammy forgetting to declare his earnings in time On the subject of Racists I must have missed your reply on the status of The Tory Party's enquiry into Islamaphobia within the party
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jun 20, 2022 20:46:42 GMT
Usual suspects seem to have gone missing That or they’ve just forgotten to post About the racist lammy forgetting to declare his earnings in time On the subject of Racists I must have missed your reply on the status of The Tory Party's enquiry into Islamaphobia within the party I wouldn’t know how the enquiry is going I haven’t followed it Corbyn still suspended for telling the truth or was it not grovelling and apologising for something he didn’t do
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jun 20, 2022 21:27:50 GMT
On the subject of Racists I must have missed your reply on the status of The Tory Party's enquiry into Islamaphobia within the party I wouldn’t know how the enquiry is going I haven’t followed it Corbyn still suspended for telling the truth or was it not grovelling and apologising for something he didn’t do That's because even though it was agreed to on TV not 1 investigation has been done by the Tory party and the racist commander in chief
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 20, 2022 22:19:06 GMT
No Hodges was the original source to prove there was no cover up and as I mentioned offered the possibility the story was pulled because it wasn't exclusive as claimed and seemed to be rehashing parts of a book serialisation the times didn't pay for. A spokesman for Ms Johnson send the claims were untrue hows that a non denial denial seems a pretty straight up denial. I have not actually passed a comment on the substance of the story as I really couldn't care one way or another. I have no idea on how she advanced in her career but you can try and be a smartarse all you like it still doesn't hide your vile misogyny. Hodges is a stooge Why don't you just read directly what Walters is on the record as saying I stand by the story 100 per cent,” Walters told me. “I was in lengthy and detailed communication with No 10 at a high level, Ben Gascoigne and Mrs Johnson’s spokeswoman for up to 48 hours before the paper went to press. At no point did any of them offer an on-the-record denial of any element of the story.”
The award-winning political journalist adds: “Nor have any of these three offered an on-the-record denial to me since. No 10 and Mr Gascoigne did not deny it off-the-record either.” Ben Gascoigne who was previously with Boris at Foreign Office and now No 10 could clear this up immediately if he wanted to he certainly doesn't seem to want to go on the record if you read above The allegation is that Gascoigne was the one who vetoed Carrie's job because he was the one who witnessed Boris being assaulted not by a Cake but Creampie Well done for avoiding the misogyny this time, thats really interesting that the journalist stands by the story which as I mentioned I have not made any comment on as I really couldn't care one way or the other. You claimed no one denied the story thats clearly untrue as the independent directly quotes a denial as clear as can be although you weirdly think a statement saying no its not true is a non denial denial, go figure. As for why they wont give the journalist involved an on or off the record quote I couldn't say for sure, I can speculate I believe they denied the story when first published 4 months ago so perhaps they think why should they need to restate their position or get into having to deny accusations from the media no matter plausible or batshit crazy they may be.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jun 20, 2022 22:47:07 GMT
Hodges is a stooge Why don't you just read directly what Walters is on the record as saying I stand by the story 100 per cent,” Walters told me. “I was in lengthy and detailed communication with No 10 at a high level, Ben Gascoigne and Mrs Johnson’s spokeswoman for up to 48 hours before the paper went to press. At no point did any of them offer an on-the-record denial of any element of the story.”
The award-winning political journalist adds: “Nor have any of these three offered an on-the-record denial to me since. No 10 and Mr Gascoigne did not deny it off-the-record either.” Ben Gascoigne who was previously with Boris at Foreign Office and now No 10 could clear this up immediately if he wanted to he certainly doesn't seem to want to go on the record if you read above The allegation is that Gascoigne was the one who vetoed Carrie's job because he was the one who witnessed Boris being assaulted not by a Cake but Creampie Well done for avoiding the misogyny this time, thats really interesting that the journalist stands by the story which as I mentioned I have not made any comment on as I really couldn't care one way or the other. You claimed no one denied the story thats clearly untrue as the independent directly quotes a denial as clear as can be although you weirdly think a statement saying no its not true is a non denial denial, go figure. As for why they wont give the journalist involved an on or off the record quote I couldn't say for sure, I can speculate I believe they denied the story when first published 4 months ago so perhaps they think why should they need to restate their position or get into having to deny accusations from the media no matter plausible or batshit crazy they may be. Hope you watched newsnight and please enlighten me as to what misogyny is involved here
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 20, 2022 22:52:49 GMT
Well done for avoiding the misogyny this time, thats really interesting that the journalist stands by the story which as I mentioned I have not made any comment on as I really couldn't care one way or the other. You claimed no one denied the story thats clearly untrue as the independent directly quotes a denial as clear as can be although you weirdly think a statement saying no its not true is a non denial denial, go figure. As for why they wont give the journalist involved an on or off the record quote I couldn't say for sure, I can speculate I believe they denied the story when first published 4 months ago so perhaps they think why should they need to restate their position or get into having to deny accusations from the media no matter plausible or batshit crazy they may be. Hope you watched newsnight and please enlighten me as to what misogyny is involved here I'd rather read your posts than watch newsnight, perhaps go back and read what I wrote again champ (big clue google what avoiding means) ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/0m0lbCuTEBzaRn6f8QaM.gif)
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 20, 2022 23:40:04 GMT
Hodges is a stooge Why don't you just read directly what Walters is on the record as saying I stand by the story 100 per cent,” Walters told me. “I was in lengthy and detailed communication with No 10 at a high level, Ben Gascoigne and Mrs Johnson’s spokeswoman for up to 48 hours before the paper went to press. At no point did any of them offer an on-the-record denial of any element of the story.”
The award-winning political journalist adds: “Nor have any of these three offered an on-the-record denial to me since. No 10 and Mr Gascoigne did not deny it off-the-record either.” Ben Gascoigne who was previously with Boris at Foreign Office and now No 10 could clear this up immediately if he wanted to he certainly doesn't seem to want to go on the record if you read above The allegation is that Gascoigne was the one who vetoed Carrie's job because he was the one who witnessed Boris being assaulted not by a Cake but Creampie Well done for avoiding the misogyny this time, thats really interesting that the journalist stands by the story which as I mentioned I have not made any comment on as I really couldn't care one way or the other. You claimed no one denied the story thats clearly untrue as the independent directly quotes a denial as clear as can be although you weirdly think a statement saying no its not true is a non denial denial, go figure. As for why they wont give the journalist involved an on or off the record quote I couldn't say for sure, I can speculate I believe they denied the story when first published 4 months ago so perhaps they think why should they need to restate their position or get into having to deny accusations from the media no matter plausible or batshit crazy they may be. No misogyny on my behalf fella I quite like women but unlike Boris I tend to treat them with respect and one at a time I would personally find it repugnant to be engaging in a extracurricular affair while my partner was fighting Cancer. Maybe that's just me. In describing Boris's behaviour in this instance it would probably be better described in legal terms as Quid Pro Quo as Carrie seems to have been a willing partner I find it very strange that you have no curiosity that the holder of one of the 4 high offices of state had contemplated a criminal Act. Is it that there is no action a member of the Tory Government could do that you wouldn't condemn? No need for speculation Walters is on record, and no-one is denying, that 48 hours÷ before publication neither Gascoigne or Carrie's spokesperson were prepared to perjure themselves to deny the truth of the story either on or off the record Do you think Johnson/Symonds will be issuing a personal statement or via their spokespeople denying the story? No me neither
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jun 21, 2022 7:25:19 GMT
Well done for avoiding the misogyny this time, thats really interesting that the journalist stands by the story which as I mentioned I have not made any comment on as I really couldn't care one way or the other. You claimed no one denied the story thats clearly untrue as the independent directly quotes a denial as clear as can be although you weirdly think a statement saying no its not true is a non denial denial, go figure. As for why they wont give the journalist involved an on or off the record quote I couldn't say for sure, I can speculate I believe they denied the story when first published 4 months ago so perhaps they think why should they need to restate their position or get into having to deny accusations from the media no matter plausible or batshit crazy they may be. No misogyny on my behalf fella I quite like women but unlike Boris I tend to treat them with respect Your respect for women just oozes out of you… The reason to pull the story by The Times is as Fishy as Carrie's CoochHer only qualification being her ability and willingness to open her legs to anyone from whom she could obtain a financial gain, a Prostitute if you will Her Tits/Brains were so important that they accompanied him on Trade Missions Quite the charmer. A real ladies man.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 21, 2022 8:30:23 GMT
This really won't end well.....
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jun 21, 2022 8:49:44 GMT
This really won't end well..... what do you expect with ritchi sunak in charge of it
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jun 21, 2022 9:18:28 GMT
Usual suspects seem to have gone missing That or they’ve just forgotten to post About the racist lammy forgetting to declare his earnings in time On the subject of Racists I must have missed your reply on the status of The Tory Party's enquiry into Islamaphobia within the party Whatabout whatabout whatabout I'm sure the Equality Commission will launch an investigation if they deem it necessary, just as they did with Corbyn's Labour
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jun 21, 2022 9:22:54 GMT
Usual suspects seem to have gone missing That or they’ve just forgotten to post About the racist lammy forgetting to declare his earnings in time ill raise you 1 bonking boris one bonking hancock and a gove sitting in a tree some of us do have lives and in whose opinion is he racist yours lol says more about you than him We all have lives. Yours is based around posting incoherent bilge on The Oatcake 😀 Have you got a passport yet, fella?
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jun 21, 2022 9:25:54 GMT
Luciana Berger was made a shadow cabinet minister before resigning over Brexit: Not sure who else was Jewish or not, as I'm not sure if any of the current cabinet are Jewish? IF you cant name one you certainly dont know your politics just think who was leader before corbin also should it matter at all Good point well made with just one small drawback- the question was about Corbyn's era not before it 🙂 Also, what device do you use to post with? Most phones have the ability to spell 'Corbin' correctly if you've typed it before.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jun 21, 2022 9:26:43 GMT
On the subject of Racists I must have missed your reply on the status of The Tory Party's enquiry into Islamaphobia within the party Whatabout whatabout whatabout I'm sure the Equality Commission will launch an investigation if they deem it necessary, just as they did with Corbyn's LabourIf only that were true........
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jun 21, 2022 9:51:35 GMT
ill raise you 1 bonking boris one bonking hancock and a gove sitting in a tree some of us do have lives and in whose opinion is he racist yours lol says more about you than him We all have lives. Yours is based around posting incoherent bilge on The Oatcake 😀 Have you got a passport yet, fella? ![(rofl)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/wMWjB17JNiCK5pUPtfmL.gif)
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jun 21, 2022 9:53:57 GMT
IF you cant name one you certainly dont know your politics just think who was leader before corbin also should it matter at all Good point well made with just one small drawback- the question was about Corbyn's era not before it 🙂 Also, what device do you use to post with? Most phones have the ability to spell 'Corbin' correctly if you've typed it before. you should really read what is written and not jump to conclusions and also look at my reply
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 21, 2022 10:36:32 GMT
I know it's Byline Times but all things being equal, I think it's the most plausible explanation offered so far, I sincerely hope they're wrong ... bylinetimes.com/2022/06/20/anatomy-of-a-cover-up-how-no-10-killed-the-times-story-about-boris-and-carrie-johnson/It was particularly striking that the Prime Minister’s spokesman on Monday was unable to issue a denial about this weekend’s Times story, suggesting that Johnson had attempted to install Carrie as his chief of staff while he was Foreign Secretary and married to his second wife, Marina Wheeler. Asked repeatedly by Byline Times to deny the story, Johnson’s spokesman refused to do so, saying only that “I don’t comment on what the Prime Minister did before he was Prime Minister.” Of all the non-responses I’ve heard from Downing Street over the years, this is among the strangest. If the Prime Minister’s own official spokesman isn’t able to speak on behalf of the Prime Minister, then who is? Posed with this question, Johnson’s spokesman insisted that the story had already been denied by a spokesperson for Carrie Johnson as well as “political” sources speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister. Yet, whatever value we might place on anonymous Downing Street sources, or a statement by a privately-employed spokesperson for the Prime Minister’s wife, it does not carry anything like the weight of an on-the-record statement by his official spokesman. Without that denial, and with multiple other publications now also independently verifying the central allegations made by The Times, it is overwhelmingly clear that the story is likely to be true. Crucially, however, Johnson’s spokesman today admitted that Number 10 had contacted The Times about the story both before and after publication. Despite seemingly not denying the story prior to publication, nor issuing any legal threats, Downing Street succeeded in getting The Times to pull it anyway. This fact has mystified some journalists at the paper, who believe there was a “high-level” intervention to quash the story, with some pointing the finger at the deputy editor Tony Gallagher. Gallagher is close to Johnson – the latter working for the former when he was editor of the Telegraph. Gallagher was also famously pictured jogging with Johnson at the Conservative Party conference in 2017, while he was editor of the The Sun. At the time, this photo call was seen as an endorsement of Johnson’s leadership prospects by Rupert Murdoch – who owns both The Times and The Sun – at the height of Theresa May’s difficulties as Prime Minister. The question therefore hangs over this weekend’s developments: did Johnson leverage this relationship in order to get the story killed off? We cannot know for sure. However, after the piece vanished from The Times, there was a lot of speculation online that the paper may have been scared into censoring the story by legal threats, or even a super-injunction. Yet, after talking to sources inside Government, it is clear that this is not the case. In some respects, the reality is actually far worse than the conspiracy theory. Rather than being scared-off by lawyers, or shadowy court orders, The Times seems to have merely folded to political pressure from Downing Street, without even putting up a fight. Writing in 1944, George Orwell said that “the most extraordinary things about England is that there is almost no official censorship, and yet nothing that is actually offensive to the governing class gets into print,” before quoting the following epigram by Humbert Woolfe: "You cannot hope to bribe or twist Thank God! the British journalist. But seeing what the man will do unbribed, there’s no occasion to." Sadly, some 80 years later, this appears to be the best explanation for The Times agreeing to kill off their own story.
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Jun 21, 2022 10:46:24 GMT
Usual suspects seem to have gone missing That or they’ve just forgotten to post About the racist lammy forgetting to declare his earnings in time Ban all other earnings or jobs. You’re allowed to volunteer, nurses, doctors, teachers whatever but it’s complete nonsense and it runs through the house. People having multiple other jobs while being an MP is utterly ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 21, 2022 10:50:22 GMT
Usual suspects seem to have gone missing That or they’ve just forgotten to post About the racist lammy forgetting to declare his earnings in time Ban all other earnings or jobs. You’re allowed to volunteer, nurses, doctors, teachers whatever but it’s complete nonsense and it runs through the house. People having multiple other jobs while being an MP is utterly ridiculous. Ban second homes and mortgages as well. Plenty of hotels in London for those who need to commute. Provide civil servants for their administration and allow maybe 1 person to be employed fopr admin/campaigns back in their constituencies. This job should be properly advertised and interviewed for. They are all taking the piss, apart from those who take a skilled worker's salary and there are not many of them.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 21, 2022 11:01:21 GMT
Well done for avoiding the misogyny this time, thats really interesting that the journalist stands by the story which as I mentioned I have not made any comment on as I really couldn't care one way or the other. You claimed no one denied the story thats clearly untrue as the independent directly quotes a denial as clear as can be although you weirdly think a statement saying no its not true is a non denial denial, go figure. As for why they wont give the journalist involved an on or off the record quote I couldn't say for sure, I can speculate I believe they denied the story when first published 4 months ago so perhaps they think why should they need to restate their position or get into having to deny accusations from the media no matter plausible or batshit crazy they may be. No misogyny on my behalf fella I quite like women but unlike Boris I tend to treat them with respect and one at a time I would personally find it repugnant to be engaging in a extracurricular affair while my partner was fighting Cancer. Maybe that's just me. In describing Boris's behaviour in this instance it would probably be better described in legal terms as Quid Pro Quo as Carrie seems to have been a willing partner I find it very strange that you have no curiosity that the holder of one of the 4 high offices of state had contemplated a criminal Act. Is it that there is no action a member of the Tory Government could do that you wouldn't condemn? No need for speculation Walters is on record, and no-one is denying, that 48 hours÷ before publication neither Gascoigne or Carrie's spokesperson were prepared to perjure themselves to deny the truth of the story either on or off the record Do you think Johnson/Symonds will be issuing a personal statement or via their spokespeople denying the story? No me neither Partick has more than adequately doubt with your ludicrous denial of misogyny lets look at the rest of your guff. Johnson was considering a criminal act what are you on about ? I saw there was some claim appointing Carrie might have been against the Ministerial code if he had not acknowledged their relationship but that is absolutely nothing to do with criminal law, I mean if it was Jeremy and John would have been under investigation for the bad luck that their sons proved to be the best candidate for each others senior roles, their first jobs too how much bad luck could that be..... Perjure themselves last time I checked journalists have no power of arrest you melon, I'm confused though Boris is a liar who always lies one minute yet now you claim because a spokesman wouldn't repeat his denial or he won't make a denial again thats somehow proof because he fears arrest (snigger). As I said they denied the story at the time, why would they need to deny it again. And as per the independents story his wifes spokesman denied the story, pay attention fella.
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Jun 21, 2022 11:06:54 GMT
This really won't end well..... They’ve lost too many of the old guard to tell them where this will end up. They won’t be able to wash the stench of the stereotype off for so many years. You only have to look at Labour fighting views from 40 years ago on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 21, 2022 11:52:11 GMT
This really won't end well..... They’ve lost too many of the old guard to tell them where this will end up. They won’t be able to wash the stench of the stereotype off for so many years. You only have to look at Labour fighting views from 40 years ago on this thread. That's true, but it helps enormously when you have a compliant press saying that only the Tories know how to successfully run the economy and that they are the party of law and order. And don't forget to imagine how bad an imaginary Labour government would be, etc etc. Nice position to be in if you can rely on that unwavering support, no matter how incompetent and corrupt you are.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jun 21, 2022 13:37:11 GMT
We all have lives. Yours is based around posting incoherent bilge on The Oatcake 😀 Have you got a passport yet, fella? ![(rofl)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/wMWjB17JNiCK5pUPtfmL.gif) Word of advice mate- when you're filling in your passport form and it asks for Name of Spouse, don't put Cilla Black or Jimmy Tarbuck 😎
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 21, 2022 14:23:08 GMT
No misogyny on my behalf fella I quite like women but unlike Boris I tend to treat them with respect and one at a time I would personally find it repugnant to be engaging in a extracurricular affair while my partner was fighting Cancer. Maybe that's just me. In describing Boris's behaviour in this instance it would probably be better described in legal terms as Quid Pro Quo as Carrie seems to have been a willing partner I find it very strange that you have no curiosity that the holder of one of the 4 high offices of state had contemplated a criminal Act. Is it that there is no action a member of the Tory Government could do that you wouldn't condemn? No need for speculation Walters is on record, and no-one is denying, that 48 hours÷ before publication neither Gascoigne or Carrie's spokesperson were prepared to perjure themselves to deny the truth of the story either on or off the record Do you think Johnson/Symonds will be issuing a personal statement or via their spokespeople denying the story? No me neither Partick has more than adequately doubt with your ludicrous denial of misogyny lets look at the rest of your guff. Johnson was considering a criminal act what are you on about ? I saw there was some claim appointing Carrie might have been against the Ministerial code if he had not acknowledged their relationship but that is absolutely nothing to do with criminal law, I mean if it was Jeremy and John would have been under investigation for the bad luck that their sons proved to be the best candidate for each others senior roles, their first jobs too how much bad luck could that be..... Perjure themselves last time I checked journalists have no power of arrest you melon, I'm confused though Boris is a liar who always lies one minute yet now you claim because a spokesman wouldn't repeat his denial or he won't make a denial again thats somehow proof because he fears arrest (snigger). As I said they denied the story at the time, why would they need to deny it again. And as per the independents story his wifes spokesman denied the story, pay attention fella. Malfeasance in a Public Office is very much a crime, look it up if you don't understand what it is The explanation linked by Paul Spencer above explain clearly the sorry mess. It has been explained to you before but your stance on the Conservatives is Hear no evil, see no evil. Very sad
|
|