Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
You know when people say "the PM doesn't rule, actually billionaire businessmen do"? I guess Sunak decided to make sure and cover both bases.
I know he made a lot of money (by normal person standards*) in his own right as a hedgie, but most of 'his' money is actually his wife's, isn't it? On account of her dad being some multi-billionaire steel magnate or something?


edit: *not yours, of course, as Dissensus's very own Wolf of Wall Street
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I know he made a lot of money (by normal person standards*) in his own right as a hedgie, but most of 'his' money is actually his wife's, isn't it? On account of her dad being some multi-billionaire steel magnate or something?


edit: *not yours, of course, as Dissensus's very own Wolf of Wall Street

I believe that his wife is the real billionaire yes.
 

shakahislop

Well-known member
i read on wikipedia that he / they are the 222nd richest people in the UK

most dissensus posters are still above them in that list obviously
 

luka

Well-known member
wearing a shirt tucked into blue denim, Seinfeld trainers and some shit sunglasses being well aggressive in defence of Elron Musk
 

shakahislop

Well-known member
Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi elites can be a total nightmare sometimes, in terms of thier attitudes to poorer people. Can have a proper born to rule flavour, no sense of the injustices of inequality, no qualms about humiliating subordinates in public etc. Sometimes it seems to me that some of those attitudes remain in like third generation south asians in the UK and the US, but these kinds of statements are always a bit shaky obviously coz I don't know many people that fit into that category.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
So Johnson is complaining about the shocking corruption in Starmer asking Sue Gray to come work for Labour... and honestly I'm not sure it was a great move. But next day, Johnson announces his honours nominees... including a certain Stanley Johnson, I mean come on.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
The sycophants supporting Johnson this week have been embarrassing at times... in fact all the time. When he - finally, way after it was due, and far too late for consideration if this were an actual court - produced his defence statement the party line was as crude as "This clearly demonstrates he did not mislead parliament" - in other words apparently, the right-wing "flog em and hang em, they're all at it, guilty til proven innocent types" are now adopting the stance, in fact more than that, are demanding that everyone take the stance that we should take the word of the accused as gospel.

If a defendant says that he is not guilty then that's it, he's not guilty. I'm one of those who is certainly happy for there to be quite a high barrier for prosecutors to clear when they are attempting to prove guilt. This is simply due to the principle that someone being mistakenly found guilty is worse than someone being wrongly let off, as the former in fact includes the latter ie if someone is wrongly convicted of a crime that they did not commit, then the guilty party has automatically been wrongly cleared. I suppose this is only the case in neat, idealized crimes with a single perpetrator, but the point that it should require a high standard of evidence and ultimately be a non-trivial challenge to convict someone of a crime remains - however even I would draw a line at saying that we accept the innocence of any defendant who says he didn't do it.

There is of course a particularly irritating circularity to that argument when the very question is "Is the defendant a liar?".

Johnson's supporters on Twitter etc are constantly trying to destroy the credibility of the court...

From The Guardian; In one heated set of exchanges, Johnson refused to explicitly disown supporters, who have called the committee “a kangaroo court”, arguing that the best way the MPs could prove their fairness would be to exonerate him of any wrongdoing. Footage of the session showed his lawyer, Lord Pannick, raising his eyebrows and shaking his head.

On this issue the people can really be divided into two groups; the first group being those who know Johnson deliberately misled parliament and are happy to say so, and the second group consisting of people who know Johnson deliberately misled parliament but who find it politically or otherwise expedient to pretend they think he didn't.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Also from Guardian...

Johnson said: “I believe that if you study this evidence impartially, you will come to the conclusion that I have given.” He added that it would be “utterly insane” for him to have misled parliament...

I totally agree.
 
Top