Current Affairs

[oldbluefox]

I don't think I'll be losing any sleep over it.

[Mervyn and Trish]

A couple of points. A CCJ is a court judgement that means the court believes you owe the money. I will prejudge neither way beyond that.

I have been involved (not personally) in cases where someone secured a CCJ that was subsequently overturned on appeal when further facts were revealed. Sometimes they happen when busy people fail to lodge their response within a timescale. Of course we don't know in this case.

The judgement made, it becomes a very serious issue if the debt then remains unpaid. Since we have not seen bailiffs at the door of No 10, I presume either that it has been paid or that an appeal has been lodged. Again we do not know.

Such minor details are not important to Private Eye, which is not a newspaper but a satirical magazine.

The BBC report is not original journalism but a report of a report.

Finally why is there a report in Private Eye? Again we do not know but my money is on a tip off from the opposition.

My main point remains that there are more important things the opposition could be worrying about, but they seem not to be.

[david63]

October regarding £535

Like all of these things we do not know all the facts.

There are many reasons why this has occurred:

1. There was some dispute over the bill.
2. Someone is deliberately trying to discredit BJ.
3. It just got overlooked - it is not as if there were more important matters going on at the time

[Stephen]

I'd like to see the bailiffs try and get into number 10.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Make a great reality TV show. Bailiffs trying to get into:

No 10
Buckingham Palace
The White House
The Kremlin

[towny44]

A couple of points. A CCJ is a court judgement that means the court believes you owe the money. I will prejudge neither way beyond that.

I have been involved (not personally) in cases where someone secured a CCJ that was subsequently overturned on appeal when further facts were revealed. Sometimes they happen when busy people fail to lodge their response within a timescale. Of course we don't know in this case.

The judgement made, it becomes a very serious issue if the debt then remains unpaid. Since we have not seen bailiffs at the door of No 10, I presume either that it has been paid or that an appeal has been lodged. Again we do not know.

Such minor details are not important to Private Eye, which is not a newspaper but a satirical magazine.

The BBC report is not original journalism but a report of a report.

Finally why is there a report in Private Eye? Again we do not know but my money is on a tip off from the opposition.

My main point remains that there are more important things the opposition could be worrying about, but they seem not to be.

Merv, you are displaying a little too much common sense again, and potentially spoiling the kicking and screaming of some of the Boris detractors.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Merv, you are displaying a little too much common sense again, and potentially spoiling the kicking and screaming of some of the Boris detractors.

Sorry I'll try to be more careful.

[Gill W]

Without knowing all the facts, the general response on the forum is to queue up to make excuses for Johnson or to blame the opposition.

I sometimes wonder how bad Johnson's behaviour would have to get before his apologists would admit in public that something was amiss.

Johnson needs to make a statement about this latest revelation. Even if the statement is not believable it's a serious matter and needs to be addressed. The lack of clarity from him makes it all look even worse.

[Mervyn and Trish]

It may not occur to you Gill, but the reason I, for one, "make excuses" is not that I don't care, but that I am heartily sick of the Boris Bashers (and since you choose to talk about "apologists" I make no apology for my use of that term) constantly banging on about their latest gripe without any evidence of the detail beyond the word of fellow detractors. In this case all you have is the word of that well known organ of balanced journalism, Private Eye.

And I don't blame the opposition for any faults Boris may or not have. I blame them for their utter abject failure to offer any credible alternative.

Once it was was Brexit, then it was speed of lockdown. Now faced with the rip roaring success of the vaccination programme the best you can all come up with is whether or not he owes £535 to person or persons unknown for goods or services unknown. And on that matter, compared to making sure I have received two shots of a vaccine that may save my life, I really don't care.

And "without knowing all the facts" you were the one who raised it. You reap what you sow.

[Ray Scully]

Without knowing all the facts, the general response on the forum is to queue up to make excuses for Johnson or to blame the opposition.

I sometimes wonder how bad Johnson's behaviour would have to get before his apologists would admit in public that something was amiss.

Gill
“It seems sometimes that people take a deliberately myopic and fill their eyes with things seen microscopically in order not to see macrosopically.”
― Marilyn Frye,

[towny44]

Without knowing all the facts, the general response on the forum is to queue up to make excuses for Johnson or to blame the opposition.

I sometimes wonder how bad Johnson's behaviour would have to get before his apologists would admit in public that something was amiss.

Gill
“It seems sometimes that people take a deliberately myopic and fill their eyes with things seen microscopically in order not to see macrosopically.”
― Marilyn Frye,

Ray, I expect that you consider your quote to be deep and meaningful, but all it does is tell me that you disagree with my views and your response is to seek to belittle me with a vague quotation, rather than with a considered response.

[oldbluefox]

Are they still banging on about it? Heard it all before.....

[Gill W]

Without knowing all the facts, the general response on the forum is to queue up to make excuses for Johnson or to blame the opposition.

I sometimes wonder how bad Johnson's behaviour would have to get before his apologists would admit in public that something was amiss.

Gill
“It seems sometimes that people take a deliberately myopic and fill their eyes with things seen microscopically in order not to see macrosopically.”
― Marilyn Frye,

Well, I think it's a very apt quote.

It says to me that people deal with each individual revelation on a separate basis, and don't step back and see how the revelations join up as a whole picture.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I can do joined up. I saw your gripes about Brexit. I saw your gripes about lockdown. I've seen your gripes about wallpaper. And how I've seen your gripes about an allegedly unpaid debt.

Yes I can see how that all adds up as a whole picture. The picture is you don't like Boris and you never will. If he goes into a blazing building to rescue 100 people you'll moan about it.

Fair enough it's your view.

But you can do joined up too. So why are you constantly surprised some of us disagree with you?

And why do you feel the need every time to criticise those who do? Another pattern.

[Bensham33]

This CCJ has simply been overlooked I don't think it was Boris that overlooked it. It was. I guess a member of his staff. Private Eye should have simply pointed this out to Boris and left it there.
I think the bloke has had a bit more to think about than a a small debt.
This story is a non story. I've just listen to the BBC 6 o clock news and I dont think it was even mentioned. In short I don't really care.

[Mervyn and Trish]

In other more important IMHO news Boris has announced a public inquiry into handling of the Coronavirus so lessoms can be learnt.

Keir Starmer has warmly welcomed it.

No I lied. Of course he hasn't. He wants it this year instead of next. Before we are able to confidently say the pandemic is over.

[Gill W]

It may not occur to you Gill, but the reason I, for one, "make excuses" is not that I don't care, but that I am heartily sick of the Boris Bashers (and since you choose to talk about "apologists" I make no apology for my use of that term) constantly banging on about their latest gripe without any evidence of the detail beyond the word of fellow detractors. In this case all you have is the word of that well known organ of balanced journalism, Private Eye.

And I don't blame the opposition for any faults Boris may or not have. I blame them for their utter abject failure to offer any credible alternative.

Once it was was Brexit, then it was speed of lockdown. Now faced with the rip roaring success of the vaccination programme the best you can all come up with is whether or not he owes £535 to person or persons unknown for goods or services unknown. And on that matter, compared to making sure I have received two shots of a vaccine that may save my life, I really don't care.

And "without knowing all the facts" you were the one who raised it. You reap what you sow.

Just a note - I used the term ‘apologists’, as the term ‘kicking and screaming Boris bashers’ had just been used.

As nobody had an issue with the latter term it seemed as if emotive language was acceptable.

[barney]

In football terms, we use that word all the time.

In criticism of the management, some will make any excuse while others jump on every tiny issue.

They are categorised as
Apologists (pro)
and
Bed Wetters (anti)

[Gill W]

I can do joined up. I saw your gripes about Brexit. I saw your gripes about lockdown. I've seen your gripes about wallpaper. And how I've seen your gripes about an allegedly unpaid debt.

Yes I can see how that all adds up as a whole picture. The picture is you don't like Boris and you never will. If he goes into a blazing building to rescue 100 people you'll moan about it.

Fair enough it's your view.

But you can do joined up too. So why are you constantly surprised some of us disagree with you?

And why do you feel the need every time to criticise those who do? Another pattern.

I’ve allowed some time to elapse before responding to this post, as I felt the situation would become heated if I responded yesterday. However, as your comments were personal about me, I do wish to respond.

My ‘gripes’ about Brexit are nothing to do with Johnson. I thought Brexit was a bad idea long before Johnson was PM. In the spirit of moving on, I have refrained from talking about Brexit, but have noticed that everyone else talks about it at least once a week, so as it seems like something that is acceptable to talk about on the forum, don’t be surprised if I post about this in future.

Not sure what you mean about’gripes’ about lockdown, as I’ve always been broadly supportive of the lockdowns. It’s a blunt tool, but, until now it was the best tool that we had to control the pandemic when it was getting out of hand. Unless you mean that I felt that we didn’t lockdown soon enough? I stand by that - locking down earlier on at least two occasions could well have saved thousands of lives.

As for ‘gripes’ about wallpaper. I did not gripe about wallpaper, as the issue was not about wallpaper. The issue was about transparency and openness in public life, which is what I was talking about.

It is true that I don’t like Johnson for various reasons that I won’t go into here. But that is immaterial - I expect certain standards in public life and a degree of competency. I don’t see that from Johnson. That is what I’m posting about. I didn’t much like Thatcher, but she was good at her job and had integrity, and I respect her for that.

Re the blazing building analogy. As somebody said to me the other day, Johnson could be drop kicking puppies and kittens into an active volcano, and still there’d be people making excuses for him!

I’m certainly not surprised by people on the forum not agreeing with me. The comments yesterday were exactly what I expected.

I’m sorry if you feel that I’m criticising forum members. From my point of view it’s just my confusion and difficulty to comprehend the (what I perceive) as blind loyalty to Johnson.

On another point, I don’t get why you are so upset about ‘Boris Bashers’ when, in multiple posts you constantly criticise Keir Starmer. I don’t care either way about what you say about Starmer, but ‘Boris Bashing’ and ‘Keir Kicking’ is exactly the same behaviour? You can’t really decry one behaviour, whilst engaging in the other!

[towny44]

I am surprised that no one has referred to the article in the Mail today unmasking the instigator of Boris's CCJ as a covid conspiracy theorist who is a serial claimant, and this claim was for alleged repeated defamation by Boris. I doubt this was specific to her but Boris, along with thousands of others has constantly tried to counter the arguments against these conspiracy theorists. Additionally this CCJ should have been referred to a higher courst, but quite likely came before a non Boris believer, who decided allow its issue.
I trust that those who posted irate comments about this, will now be prepared to offer their abject apologies.

[Gill W]

I am surprised that no one has referred to the article in the Mail today unmasking the instigator of Boris's CCJ as a covid conspiracy theorist who is a serial claimant, and this claim was for alleged repeated defamation by Boris. I doubt this was specific to her but Boris, along with thousands of others has constantly tried to counter the arguments against these conspiracy theorists. Additionally this CCJ should have been referred to a higher courst, but quite likely came before a non Boris believer, who decided allow its issue.
I trust that those who posted irate comments about this, will now be prepared to offer their abject apologies.

I don't read the Daily Mail or look at its website, so I was not aware of this article.

I've now looked at it - if true, my comments still stand from yesterday. He would have had numerous items of correspondence about this, To have ignored this, and to get a CCJ lodged against him suggests a very chaotic approach to his personal administration. A person in his position in public life should have realised that a CCJ against him would be damaging and he should have responded to the letters from the court - or got a lackey to do it on his behalf.

Anyway, I'm afraid I can't take your post seriously, as you have called into doubt the impartiality of the judiciary.

[towny44]

I am surprised that no one has referred to the article in the Mail today unmasking the instigator of Boris's CCJ as a covid conspiracy theorist who is a serial claimant, and this claim was for alleged repeated defamation by Boris. I doubt this was specific to her but Boris, along with thousands of others has constantly tried to counter the arguments against these conspiracy theorists. Additionally this CCJ should have been referred to a higher courst, but quite likely came before a non Boris believer, who decided allow its issue.
I trust that those who posted irate comments about this, will now be prepared to offer their abject apologies.

I don't read the Daily Mail or look at its website, so I was not aware of this article.

I've now looked at it - if true, my comments still stand from yesterday. He would have had numerous items of correspondence about this, To have ignored this, and to get a CCJ lodged against him suggests a very chaotic approach to his personal administration. A person in his position in public life should have realised that a CCJ against him would be damaging and he should have responded to the letters from the court - or got a lackey to do it on his behalf.

Anyway, I'm afraid I can't take your post seriously, as you have called into doubt the impartiality of the judiciary.

Gill, if you have read the article in full you will see the reference to the fact that this claim should have been sent to the high court for them to adjudicate on. I think that anyone serving as a magistrate would know this, so I speculated on the motive, and I wonder why you consider that whilst a prime minister might be corrupt and willing to bend the rules, you dont think a magistrate would be?
The article also provides valid reasons why the original correspondence could have got lost in Downing street, but I dont expect you to apologise, you rarely do.

[david63]

Technically there is no CJJ against the PM (not that we know of) as this application was invalid on two counts:

1. It was not in his correct name.
2. It was not delivered to his known place of residence.

My guess is that it was delivered to 10 Downing Street, opened by one of the office staff and treated as junk mail, of which I suspect there is plenty, and binned. I doubt that Boris even saw it.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Maybe Boris was busy. I seem to recall he has had a few minor issues on his plate that might distract him from a malicious CCJ claim by a known serial claimant. Still if some wish to give more credibility to a Covid denier than the PM that is up to them.

[Gill W]

I am surprised that no one has referred to the article in the Mail today unmasking the instigator of Boris's CCJ as a covid conspiracy theorist who is a serial claimant, and this claim was for alleged repeated defamation by Boris. I doubt this was specific to her but Boris, along with thousands of others has constantly tried to counter the arguments against these conspiracy theorists. Additionally this CCJ should have been referred to a higher courst, but quite likely came before a non Boris believer, who decided allow its issue.
I trust that those who posted irate comments about this, will now be prepared to offer their abject apologies.

I don't read the Daily Mail or look at its website, so I was not aware of this article.

I've now looked at it - if true, my comments still stand from yesterday. He would have had numerous items of correspondence about this, To have ignored this, and to get a CCJ lodged against him suggests a very chaotic approach to his personal administration. A person in his position in public life should have realised that a CCJ against him would be damaging and he should have responded to the letters from the court - or got a lackey to do it on his behalf.

Anyway, I'm afraid I can't take your post seriously, as you have called into doubt the impartiality of the judiciary.

Gill, if you have read the article in full you will see the reference to the fact that this claim should have been sent to the high court for them to adjudicate on. I think that anyone serving as a magistrate would know this, so I speculated on the motive, and I wonder why you consider that whilst a prime minister might be corrupt and willing to bend the rules, you dont think a magistrate would be?
The article also provides valid reasons why the original correspondence could have got lost in Downing street, but I dont expect you to apologise, you rarely do.

I've done a quick Google search. CCJ's are normally only referred to the High Court to benefit the claimant and have to be for a figure over £600. I couldn't find anything about defamation relating to CCJ's, so I'm not going to accept the one source on a newspaper without verification from other sources.

But my core point still remains - it shouldn't have got this far, 7 months after the CCJ was first issued. His affairs must be very chaotic for him not to notice a CCJ had been lodged against him.

My opinions of Boris Johnson have been formed over multiple years. I know nothing about this unnamed court official who granted the CCJ so there's no foundation at all to question if there was any motive behind granting the CCJ, apart from simply doing their job.