Boris Johnson backtracks on Jimmy Savile slur as he seeks to 'clarify' remarks

[HDQQ]

Now there's talk of plans for a general election next year.

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-news-live-reshuffle-rees-mogg-starmer-savile-12514080

It's a bit baffling given the nosedive in popularity of Boris Johnson and the Tory Party. So I wonder if this is:

1/ A pre-existing plan to have an election in a scenario where Johnson was still riding high in the polls, in order to secure another 5 years?
2/ A realisation that things can only get worse for the Tories and they'd have even less chance of winning in 2024?
3/ Johnson threatening his own MPs with an election if there's a leadership challenge?

[Borchester]

Oh stop  being so melodramatic.

It does sound a bit queanie does it not?

How about we let Pappy spill the beans on the House of Commons Catamite Club, ban him for being rude and then, after we have passed the smelling salts around and read all the gossip, invite him back?

[Borchester]

Perhaps we should reintroduce duelling Borkie. Sounds like you aren't no wokey. f**k etiquette. We need our stiff upper lip back huh.

Sounds good

[papasmurf]

Oh stop  being so melodramatic.

Nothing melodramatic about it. People seem to have forgotten which Prime Minister ordered the security services to "lose" the files on paedophiles in high places.

[cromwell]

I could state a  lot about it but it would get me barred from the forum.

Oh stop  being so melodramatic.

[B0ycey]

They do. And my response is to tell them to f**k off.

Perhaps we should reintroduce duelling Borkie. Sounds like you aren't no wokey. f**k etiquette. We need our stiff upper lip back huh.

[Borchester]

I wonder Borkie, if your neighbours stood in your face and ranted, if you would be OK with that.

They do. And my response is to tell them to F@@@ off.

[papasmurf]

I wonder Borkie, if you neighbours stood in your face and ranted, if you would be OK with that.

The truth is speech isn't restricted, but how you conduct that speech is. And that is how it should be. And certainly if it is regards to safety.

The last time that happened to me, the offending gobber off got thrown through a window, (Not by me,) luckily for them the window was open and only three feet above the pavement.

[B0ycey]

Bollocks.

The moment you say I support free speech but,,,then you haven't got any.

I wonder Borkie, if your neighbours stood in your face and ranted, if you would be OK with that.

The truth is speech isn't restricted, but how you conduct that speech is. And that is how it should be. And certainly if it is in regards to safety.

[Borchester]

Then it is up to Starmer to sue for liable (not PM who has his privilege). I support more safeguards for online disinformation in any case. But I do not support silencing voices I don't agree with full stop. But that is a completely different issue than people waving a banner in your face. I look at the pictures and see two issues here. One that BoJo should perhaps apologise and another that security still hasn't been addressed.

Bollocks.

The moment you say I support free speech but,,,then you haven't got any.

[Borchester]

The rules for  House of Commons have forbidden that since 1844.

And 15 years before that the Duke of Wellington and the Earl of Winchilsea settled their political differences by way of a gunfight,

The wimpification of UK politics continues.

[B0ycey]

It the telling of blatant lie about Starmer by Johnson that is the problem.  It repeats a lie from the dark nasty parts to the internet. (Which makes me wonder who primed Boris with it.)

Then it is up to Starmer to sue for liable (not PM who has his privilege). I support more safeguards for online disinformation in any case. But I do not support silencing voices I don't agree with full stop. But that is a completely different issue than people waving a banner in your face. I look at the pictures and see two issues here. One that BoJo should perhaps apologise and another that security still hasn't been addressed.

[papasmurf]

Who is saying there should be a restriction on speech? There is a difference with voicing an opinion and getting up close and personal.

It the telling of blatant lie about Starmer by Johnson that is the problem.  It repeats a lie from the dark nasty parts to the internet. (Which makes me wonder who primed Boris with it.)

[B0ycey]

f**k them. If you can't stand up and tell an MP he is a c*nt then we will end up living in a land fit only for the Labour party.

Who is saying there should be a restriction on speech? There is a difference with voicing an opinion and getting up close and personal.

[papasmurf]

f**k them. If you can't stand up and tell an MP he is a c*nt then we will end up living in a land fit only for the Labour party.

The rules for  House of Commons have forbidden that since 1844.