Priti Patel: Should she be sacked?

Here's a slightly different take on the issue.

http://www.ericjoyce.co.uk/2017/11/boris-johnsons-mistake-spying-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/

Oops, I just realised part 2 appeared in the last ten minutes. I should read it!

http://www.ericjoyce.co.uk/2017/11/nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-and-boris-johnson-part-2/

Eric Joyce is a former Labour MP who blotted his copybook bigtime by being unable to stop himself decking a Tory while he was smashed. He has an alcohol problem. But he is nevertheless an extremely bright guy when sober and he knows the inner workings of these things. It's an interesting point of view.
 
Rolfe said:
Here's a slightly different take on the issue.
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure what he's getting at.
Johnson cocked up.
There's no two ways about that.
It's a bad image, and no...if she does come back in the next few weeks it will not show Boris in a good light, as the (further) damage to his image has been done.

As he implies in the second one, these things can be (and usually are) done behind the scenes if there's some shenanigans going on. So for Boris to blurt nonsense out in public isn't some subtle scheme...really, it isn't.
 
He didn't blurt out nonsense. She probably was training journalists - certainly that's what Iran has accused her of.

So did Boris deliberately or accidentally miss out the words, "accused of" when he answered the committee questions - that's the only real question.
 
ceptimus said:
He didn't blurt out nonsense. She probably was training journalists - certainly that's what Iran has accused her of.

So did Boris deliberately or accidentally miss out the words, "accused of" when he answered the committee questions - that's the only real question.
Click to expand...

The point is if he were less of a putz he would have known not to blurt out that she committed the crime she's accused of.
 
ceptimus said:
He didn't blurt out nonsense. She probably was training journalists - certainly that's what Iran has accused her of.
Click to expand...
Initially, it was "trying to topple the regime". Only recently, but before BoJo's remark, that was clarified as being training journalists.

ceptimus said:
So did Boris deliberately or accidentally miss out the words, "accused of" when he answered the committee questions - that's the only real question.
Click to expand...
Hansard has his words as:
Boris Johnson: Of course. Obviously, we will have to be very careful about this, because we want them to be released. I have raised this case many times now with Javad Zarif, my Iranian counterpart. When we look at what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was doing, she was simply teaching people journalism, as I understand it, at the very limit. I hope that a way forward can be found. I must say, I find it deeply depressing; I think it is totally contrary to the interests of the Iranian people for this to continue.
Click to expand...
I can't fit the words "accused of" anywhere in there, or anything similar. I can only make of that that he was genuinely convinced she was teaching journalism.

But rest assured, BoJo will visit Iran and clear it up that she did no such thing, but went there for something innocent like distributing Bibles or converting people to Christianity.
 
ddt said:
Initially, it was "trying to topple the regime". Only recently, but before BoJo's remark, that was clarified as being training journalists.


Hansard has his words as:

I can't fit the words "accused of" anywhere in there, or anything similar. I can only make of that that he was genuinely convinced she was teaching journalism.

But rest assured, BoJo will visit Iran and clear it up that she did no such thing, but went there for something innocent like distributing Bibles or converting people to Christianity.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and a commentator on the Today programme on Monday made the point that Johnson commented either without reading his briefings on the case, or he ignored them. Either way, it isn't just a gaffe but indicates a cavalier approach to his job and a fundamental incompetence.
 
ceptimus said:
He didn't blurt out nonsense. She probably was training journalists - certainly that's what Iran has accused her of.

So did Boris deliberately or accidentally miss out the words, "accused of" when he answered the committee questions - that's the only real question.
Click to expand...

There's no question at all.
We have the footage. It's quite clear what he was saying.
He ********** up, and then singularly failed to apologise.

And, no...that was most certainly not an apology.
 
ceptimus said:
He didn't blurt out nonsense. She probably was training journalists - certainly that's what Iran has accused her of.

So did Boris deliberately or accidentally miss out the words, "accused of" when he answered the committee questions - that's the only real question.
Click to expand...

That's certainly not what Johnson's Foreign Ministry has been saying for years.

And if that was what he meant why didn't he just correct himself? Whichever way you slice it it shows his basic incompetence to hold such an office of state.
 
ddt said:
I can't fit the words "accused of" anywhere in there.
Click to expand...

No. That's my point exactly. If he'd said, "she was accused of simply teaching people journalism", then no one would have any grounds to be critical of Boris concerning this matter.

My question is did he just accidentally leave out those words or, as the article Rolfe linked to suggests as a possibility, he knew that Iran would not release the woman until our government admitted, in some manner, what the woman was really doing.
 
ceptimus said:
No. That's my point exactly. If he'd said, "she was accused of simply teaching people journalism", then no one would have any grounds to be critical of Boris concerning this matter.

My question is did he just accidentally leave out those words or, as the article Rolfe linked to suggests as a possibility, he knew that Iran would not release the woman until our government admitted, in some manner, what the woman was really doing.
Click to expand...

Have you any reason to suppose that is what she was really doing? I haven't seen anything about that.

Professor Mads Andenaes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mads_Andenæs) interviewed on the Today Programme on Monday

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09drjb5 ( 1:17:00 start) to 1:17:24 says that a UN body had verified the family's story.
 
My reasons for supposing that she might have been doing that are spelt out in the Eric Joyce article that Rolfe linked to in post #81.

Certainly I have no knowledge of whether or not the woman is entirely innocent. But that may not matter - if the only way to get her released from Iran is to first admit to Iran in some manner that she may have been guilty of some crime, then there's the possibility that Boris was actually doing the woman a favour when he made his "mistake".

I'm quite prepared to believe the story that the the western media is pushing - that the woman is completely innocent and that Boris f****-ed up - but as critical thinkers we should recognize that western media has a notorious history of bias when it comes to reporting about Iran.
 
ceptimus said:
My reasons for supposing that she might have been doing that are spelt out in the Eric Joyce article that Rolfe linked to in post #81.

Certainly I have no knowledge of whether or not the woman is entirely innocent. But that may not matter - if the only way to get her released from Iran is to first admit to Iran in some manner that she may have been guilty of some crime, then there's the possibility that Boris was actually doing the woman a favour when he made his "mistake".

I'm quite prepared to believe the story that the the western media is pushing - that the woman is completely innocent and that Boris f****-ed up - but as critical thinkers we should recognize that western media has a notorious history of bias when it comes to reporting about Iran.
Click to expand...
You mean he planned it? Have you read his actual words?
 
I suppose if he did plan it, that would be an explanation of why he's been so unwilling to issue a proper apology.

Perhaps more likely is that his vanity means that issuing apologies is anathema to him.
 
I'm very confused as to the topic of the thread. Is it about UK politics or about how badly Americans managed to mangle the Queen's English?

Al-u-min-ium! Also, a Vet is someone who treats sick/injured animals. #JustSayin
 
ceptimus said:
I suppose if he did plan it, that would be an explanation of why he's been so unwilling to issue a proper apology.

Perhaps more likely is that his vanity means that issuing apologies is anathema to him.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair why should he apologize for being inept at his job when it appears to a requirement to be part of May's cabinet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom