The Politics Thread

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply

Who will you be voting for?

Labour
13
41%
Conservatives
12
38%
Liberal Democrats
2
6%
UK Independence Party (UKIP)
0
No votes
Green Party
3
9%
Plaid Cymru
0
No votes
Other
1
3%
Planet Hobo
1
3%
 
Total votes: 32

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36010
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:05 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:37 pm
Depends on the "crime" or law.

Don't think the above is a great example of what I think you're getting at, as the answer to your question is yes as long as the jury believed you but that's because dishonesty is part of the test for theft.

A better example would be whether you knew theft was a crime. I.e. (albeit contrived) you took things, you knew it was dishonest - it wouldn't be a defence to say well I didn't know dishonestly taking things was against the law. Assuming that's conceptually possible which I think it just about is!

I imagine some of the Covid offences have mens rea tests, some are strict liability.

Tough to see how the PM could argue though, even if it worked legally it's not exactly a *good* look.
So as a different example. Could I drive above the speed limit and use the defence of ‘I thought it was a private road’?

These are genuine questions and not trying to create a gotcha by the way. Had some discussions about this stuff today and I feel I may have argued incorrectly. I always thought ignorance wasn’t a defence. And I realise my first example was wrong.

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Prufrock » Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:10 am

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:05 pm
Prufrock wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:37 pm
Depends on the "crime" or law.

Don't think the above is a great example of what I think you're getting at, as the answer to your question is yes as long as the jury believed you but that's because dishonesty is part of the test for theft.

A better example would be whether you knew theft was a crime. I.e. (albeit contrived) you took things, you knew it was dishonest - it wouldn't be a defence to say well I didn't know dishonestly taking things was against the law. Assuming that's conceptually possible which I think it just about is!

I imagine some of the Covid offences have mens rea tests, some are strict liability.

Tough to see how the PM could argue though, even if it worked legally it's not exactly a *good* look.
So as a different example. Could I drive above the speed limit and use the defence of ‘I thought it was a private road’?

These are genuine questions and not trying to create a gotcha by the way. Had some discussions about this stuff today and I feel I may have argued incorrectly. I always thought ignorance wasn’t a defence. And I realise my first example was wrong.
It's true-ish to say in general terms that "ignorance of the law is no defence" but that has quite a narrow meaning. In reality, lots of crimes require some sort of mental element (e.g the famous mens rea) which in practice can have a fair bit of overlap, particularly where the test relates to "reasonable beliefs" rather than honest ones.

To slightly modify your speeding example (as I'm not a criminal lawyer, and don't know the answer for sure, though I'd guess at the very least if you had a reasonable belief that it was a private road you'd have a defence) - I do know it's a defence if the speed limit isn't properly marked as people have got away with doing 60 in a 50 because a bush had grown over the sign - so I think speeding must have a defence with some sort of mental element along the lines that couldn't reasonably have known it was a 50mph zone.

In that case, it wouldn't be a defence to say I didn't realise that speeding was a crime. There's your ignorance of the law isn't a defence. But it would be a defence to say I reasonably didn't know it was a 50 zone. That's ignorance of a fact, not of the law.

So for Boris, assuming that work events were allowed, but social events weren't - it wouldn't be a defence to say I didn't know you couldn't have social events (ignorance of the law) but it probably would to say I reasonably thought it was a work event rather than a social event (depending on the drafting).

But as far as I can gather we weren't even allowed work events back in May - so it all seems a bit moot legally.

Overshadowing all of that is a slightly more complicated point in that a lot of the legislation underpinning these offences was rushed through and came in to force with very little notice. There would potentially be all sorts of Human Rights challenges to prosecution under a brand-spanking new law that nobody knew about or understood which is why in the early days I think police were (supposed to be) breaking things up without arrests unless completely egregious. There's probably some scope there to say "ignorance of the law is potentially a defence". But that's for another lecture :D

And probably not much help to the PM of the Govt who brought them in.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36010
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by BWFC_Insane » Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:50 am

Cheers. Great explanation. So really the test is whether it was reasonable for him to assume it was a work event. And I think we all know the answer to that…though one might question the broader point if anyone thinks it was reasonable then we really are led by the most appalling wasters imaginable.

I suppose you could say I went to a party in a house but we all worked together. We all got FPNs but appealed on the basis that we thought it was an essential work meeting. And fire that off to Priti Patel historically to see what she said pre these revelations….

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Prufrock » Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:29 am

I'm not even sure that is in fact that test for the Martin Reynolds party. That was May 2020 and a few usually trustworthy people have said that we weren't even allowed "work events" then.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Worthy4England » Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:31 am

Prufrock wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:29 am
I'm not even sure that is in fact that test for the Martin Reynolds party. That was May 2020 and a few usually trustworthy people have said that we weren't even allowed "work events" then.
I'm not sure that's the test for any of it, tbf. I think many are judging on the "was he and his no10 operation doing things substantively different than it felt for the rest of us, and was that taking the pi$$"

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Prufrock » Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:35 am

Well yeah, there's the legal test and the political test.

I think they're trying to obfuscate the first one in a bid to distract everyone from the second.

Does seem this has very much "cut through". Also given that it seems folk have been sitting on it for maximum political opportunity, will be interesting to see if any potential leadership candidates drop out off the running for "personal reasons"
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Worthy4England » Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:15 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:35 am
Well yeah, there's the legal test and the political test.

I think they're trying to obfuscate the first one in a bid to distract everyone from the second.

Does seem this has very much "cut through". Also given that it seems folk have been sitting on it for maximum political opportunity, will be interesting to see if any potential leadership candidates drop out off the running for "personal reasons"
Aye, if we make it all about "legality" rather than moral compass, there's a chance...

KeyserSoze
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2446
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:57 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by KeyserSoze » Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:17 pm

Bury South MP Christian Wakeford defects from Conservatives to Labour. Oooooo
Nero fiddles while Gordon Burns.

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Worthy4England » Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:44 pm

A Conservative MP told Sky News the Tory chief whip "hauled" Mr Wakeford in last night "and it sent him over the edge when they threatened his seat" with having its boundary changed.

"This is what bully tactics look like," the MP said

jimbo
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 3127
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:34 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by jimbo » Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:47 pm

That David Davis question! Definitely game over for Johnson in the coming days.

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Worthy4England » Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:49 pm

jimbo wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:47 pm
That David Davis question! Definitely game over for Johnson in the coming days.
I was thinking that, then I started to question "how much clout" Davis might command, within the ranks....

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36010
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by BWFC_Insane » Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:55 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:49 pm
jimbo wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:47 pm
That David Davis question! Definitely game over for Johnson in the coming days.
I was thinking that, then I started to question "how much clout" Davis might command, within the ranks....
I’d imagine….absolutely none.

But the Tories are in very open civil war. Shouting and screaming at each other. And defections. This isn’t sustainable so either he goes or I think they all do.

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Worthy4England » Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:00 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:55 pm
Worthy4England wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:49 pm
jimbo wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:47 pm
That David Davis question! Definitely game over for Johnson in the coming days.
I was thinking that, then I started to question "how much clout" Davis might command, within the ranks....
I’d imagine….absolutely none.

But the Tories are in very open civil war. Shouting and screaming at each other. And defections. This isn’t sustainable so either he goes or I think they all do.
I doubt the latter, given the majority they have in HoC...They're not totally stupid when it comes to self preservation.

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36010
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by BWFC_Insane » Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:19 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:00 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:55 pm
Worthy4England wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:49 pm
jimbo wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:47 pm
That David Davis question! Definitely game over for Johnson in the coming days.
I was thinking that, then I started to question "how much clout" Davis might command, within the ranks....
I’d imagine….absolutely none.

But the Tories are in very open civil war. Shouting and screaming at each other. And defections. This isn’t sustainable so either he goes or I think they all do.
I doubt the latter, given the majority they have in HoC...They're not totally stupid when it comes to self preservation.
I meant in the next GE and I agree. They cannot let this continue for their own self preservation.

KeyserSoze
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2446
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:57 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by KeyserSoze » Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:47 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:55 pm
Worthy4England wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:49 pm
jimbo wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:47 pm
That David Davis question! Definitely game over for Johnson in the coming days.
I was thinking that, then I started to question "how much clout" Davis might command, within the ranks....
I’d imagine….absolutely none.

But the Tories are in very open civil war. Shouting and screaming at each other. And defections. This isn’t sustainable so either he goes or I think they all do.

Maybe not but it shows that the anger isn't just based with the 2019 class, it's broad based across the parliamentary party. The longer this festers the worse it is for them.

However, we must wait for Sue Grey :D
Nero fiddles while Gordon Burns.

User avatar
Bruce Rioja
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38742
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Bruce Rioja » Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:23 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:55 pm
This isn’t sustainable so either he goes or I think they all do.
If we're waiting for a judderingly dishonourable man to do the honourable thing then we'll be here a while.

Just going back to something you said further up, 'I suppose you could say I went to a party in a house but we all worked together'.

Christmas 2020 and I'd invited three former colleagues round for dinner between Christmas and New Year. It was only after we'd agreed the date that the new restrictions were announced by Boris. It occurred to us that we could actually try dressing it up as a legitimate business meeting (we all work within the same industry and have regular business contact with each other) but we didn't; we did what was right and called it off.

Not withstanding the utter nonsense which meant the same four of us, sat around the same table whilst enjoying the same meal could legally talk about textiles, but not about football, there was the whole spirit of the lockdown to consider, not least those people who were unable to be with loved ones. Just because we had a little 'get out' card, not a one of us felt we could. It would have been the most horrendously selfish thing to do.
May the bridges I burn light your way

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Worthy4England » Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:28 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:23 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:55 pm
This isn’t sustainable so either he goes or I think they all do.
If we're waiting for a judderingly dishonourable man to do the honourable thing then we'll be here a while.

Just going back to something you said further up, 'I suppose you could say I went to a party in a house but we all worked together'.

Christmas 2020 and I'd invited three former colleagues round for dinner between Christmas and New Year. It occurred to us that we could actually try dressing it up as a legitimate business meeting (we all work within the same industry and have regular business contact with each other) but we didn't; we did what was right and called it off.

Not withstanding the utter nonsense which meant the same four of us, sat around the same table whilst enjoying the same meal could legally talk about textiles, but not about football, there was the whole spirit of the lockdown to consider, not least those people who were unable to be with loved ones. Just because we had a little 'get out' card, not a one of us felt we could. It would have been the most horrendously selfish thing to do.
That's where I'm at. I doubt there was a business in the country that didn't think along the same lines. Some of the activities we've seen (like the lass that lost her job planning for Q&A), we did all that shit remotely in prepping for customer sessions. Yet they all needed to be in the office, doing office shit? Every business could have landed that excuse - but didn't, generally, because they believed "we were all in it together" and taking it seriously.

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36010
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by BWFC_Insane » Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:38 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:23 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:55 pm
This isn’t sustainable so either he goes or I think they all do.
If we're waiting for a judderingly dishonourable man to do the honourable thing then we'll be here a while.

Just going back to something you said further up, 'I suppose you could say I went to a party in a house but we all worked together'.

Christmas 2020 and I'd invited three former colleagues round for dinner between Christmas and New Year. It was only after we'd agreed the date that the new restrictions were announced by Boris. It occurred to us that we could actually try dressing it up as a legitimate business meeting (we all work within the same industry and have regular business contact with each other) but we didn't; we did what was right and called it off.

Not withstanding the utter nonsense which meant the same four of us, sat around the same table whilst enjoying the same meal could legally talk about textiles, but not about football, there was the whole spirit of the lockdown to consider, not least those people who were unable to be with loved ones. Just because we had a little 'get out' card, not a one of us felt we could. It would have been the most horrendously selfish thing to do.
I’m sure everyone had discussions about all sorts of things in relation to the rules and what was or wasn’t appropriate.

I can’t get over the fact that as these revelations drip fed out that if they’d just been honest, fronted it out and apologised it would have been a storm. But probably blown over. But to spend months spinning lie after lie as each one fell down is utterly shamelessly disgraceful.

I have not liked certain PMs but I don’t think I’ve ever completely had zero respect for them at all? So much so that I actually think I’d be inclined to cross the road if he was ever opposite.


This isn’t even politics. I pretty much disagreed with every word Thatcher uttered but she was a statesperson who believed in what she did. She was someone who devoted herself to the job. I disliked her immensely. But I would absolutely learn so much in a dinner with her. And you know she meant it. I can’t think of any leader who I wouldn’t ascribe a similar sense of service to. May again - was visibly shaken that she couldn’t continue as she was a public servant.

Johnson is none of those things. When you think we’ve gone from Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Cameron to this it’s utterly unimaginable.

boltonboris
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 13989
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by boltonboris » Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:02 pm

Put it this way, if the police walked into my office on the 20th December 2020 and we had music on, bottles of beer and wine on the tables, then one or more would have been arrested and/or fined.
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"

User avatar
Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 13303
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Hoboh » Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:31 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:23 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:55 pm
This isn’t sustainable so either he goes or I think they all do.
If we're waiting for a judderingly dishonourable man to do the honourable thing then we'll be here a while.

Just going back to something you said further up, 'I suppose you could say I went to a party in a house but we all worked together'.

Christmas 2020 and I'd invited three former colleagues round for dinner between Christmas and New Year. It was only after we'd agreed the date that the new restrictions were announced by Boris. It occurred to us that we could actually try dressing it up as a legitimate business meeting (we all work within the same industry and have regular business contact with each other) but we didn't; we did what was right and called it off.

Not withstanding the utter nonsense which meant the same four of us, sat around the same table whilst enjoying the same meal could legally talk about textiles, but not about football, there was the whole spirit of the lockdown to consider, not least those people who were unable to be with loved ones. Just because we had a little 'get out' card, not a one of us felt we could. It would have been the most horrendously selfish thing to do.
Spot on, absolutely the correct thing to do Bruce, this shambles needs to end PDQ I watched PMQ's and could not believe the stupidity of Johnson waffling about how great the British public have been on jab take up in answer to every question. Flattery will get him nowhere even his dog Mogg had to work hard to nod, blink and you'd have missed it. Spat the coffee out when doc marts on the labour bench started waving goodbye to him.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 guests