The Tories Thread

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Is "documented evidence" the only standard of proof that we accept now? What about personal testimony? I appreciate that that brings into question the character and motivation of those giving testimony, but isn't that what having a trial is all about? Does Sue Grey's investigation require a higher standard of evidence than an English court of law?

Genuine question. It's possible that it might, but if not then surely convincing testimony, especially if from two separate sources, would surely constitute evidence. Assuming the sources are considered reliable of course, which as they work in politics is by no means a given.

she's not a court and it's not a trial. the point is that, in a he said/he said, boris will simply say that he's not aware that either of them told him this and therefore he didn't lie.

has cummings even said he did tell boris? he was copied on an email that went to reynolds. so what? there needs to be more.

it's not a question of what standard of proof we accept. we all know it's balls.

boris will just say he was relying on reynolds to get it right.

Originally Posted by jem

she's not a court and it's not a trial. the point is that, in a he said/he said, boris will simply say that he's not aware that either of them told him this and therefore he didn't lie.

has cummings even said he did tell boris? he was copied on an email that went to reynolds. so what? there needs to be more.

it's not a question of what standard of proof we accept. we all know it's balls.

boris will just say he was relying on reynolds to get it right.

Cummings said he told him personally and the other source thinks he also did. Regardless of that he still saw what was happening and allowed it to carry on. On any objective basis that itself is enough.

Originally Posted by jem

she's not a court and it's not a trial. the point is that, in a he said/he said, boris will simply say that he's not aware that either of them told him this and therefore he didn't lie.

has cummings even said he did tell boris? he was copied on an email that went to reynolds. so what? there needs to be more.

it's not a question of what standard of proof we accept. we all know it's balls.

boris will just say he was relying on reynolds to get it right.

But is she able to say she finds one of them more likely to be telling the truth than the other, or does she need documentary evidence.

To be honest, unless there is a hard copy of the email with boris's signature on it or some other communication directly from him saying he has read it then he can always deny it. At some point it has to come down to it simply not being believable that he didn't know what was going on.

Admittedly, that bar is a LOT lower for some MPs than it is for others.

you know boris is going to say either categorically that cummings or reynolds didn't tell him or that he doesn't remember either of them telling him and therefore... even if one of them did tell him... he didn't lie to parliament, because he believed what he was saying to be true. I think she is very unlikely to conclude in her report that the pm lied. at best, she will say there is conflicting evidence. but it doesn't really matter. he will go when the party wants him to go, not when starmer and blackford suggest it.

Originally Posted by jem

you know boris is going to say either categorically that cummings or reynolds didn't tell him or that he doesn't remember either of them telling him and therefore... even if one of them did tell him... he didn't lie to parliament, because he believed what he was saying to be true. I think she is very unlikely to conclude in her report that the pm lied. at best, she will say there is conflicting evidence. but it doesn't really matter. he will go when the party wants him to go, not when starmer and blackford suggest it.

the silence about these blackmail allegations is deafening.

I think letters are going to be going in as we speak.

Originally Posted by jem

she's not a court and it's not a trial. the point is that, in a he said/he said, boris will simply say that he's not aware that either of them told him this and therefore he didn't lie.

has cummings even said he did tell boris? he was copied on an email that went to reynolds. so what? there needs to be more.

it's not a question of what standard of proof we accept. we all know it's balls.

boris will just say he was relying on reynolds to get it right.

Jem why do you call Johnson by his first name but everybody else by their surnames?

I will tell you....it’s because you have been subliminally fooled

Originally Posted by jem

you know boris is going to say either categorically that cummings or reynolds didn't tell him or that he doesn't remember either of them telling him and therefore... even if one of them did tell him... he didn't lie to parliament, because he believed what he was saying to be true. I think she is very unlikely to conclude in her report that the pm lied. at best, she will say there is conflicting evidence. but it doesn't really matter. he will go when the party wants him to go, not when starmer and blackford suggest it.

...and again

Originally Posted by Zorg

Is threatening to withdraw funding from constituencies to save one man's job part of 'levelling up' ?

Presume Johnson will claim it didn't happen, or it did happen but he didn't know, or it did happen and he knew about it, but nobody told him it was wrong.

Hes "seen no evidence to support the claims".

They really are scum.

Originally Posted by no fun

Jem why do you call Johnson by his first name but everybody else by their surnames?

I will tell you....it’s because you have been subliminally fooled



...and again

grow up.

Originally Posted by jem

grow up.

Ooh get you Ustinov

Just an observation jem....why not Dominic or keir?

https://twitter.com/BBCNWT/status/1484149149700341770