Why is the Downing Street party scandal still important?


Now that London police have announced fines for 20 British government officials for breaking the pandemic rules they have proved themselves, we can draw two conclusions about UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson: either he was completely unaware of the laws he was directly responsible for when he was less . Than four months ago he said that “all instructions were observed” or repeatedly and brazenly lied. There is a third possibility: he had no idea what was going on in the Prime Minister’s residence, which is too offensive for anyone’s intellect to bother playing with him.

The question of which option is right is an interesting academic debate. But both provide the same answer to the basic question: Despite the political choice, is this person ready for a high position? Let’s play anyway. Johnson has a reputation for not being too careful about details. If they could get their arms, legs, and skillfully pulled hair out of the phrase “educated beyond their intellect,” that would be it. Unfortunately, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge do not lack people of its type: middle-aged children in a privileged world whose pretentious vocabulary and unnecessary use of Latin betray their lack of background and knowledge.

When Johnson was secretary of state, officials who worked with him said he had a “mosquito level of attention” and that his reports “should be brief and clear instructions on what to do.” The public statements he made to the British-Iranian Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe that he was supplying journalists to Iran, instead of saying he had gone to see his family during the holidays, are an example of the dire consequences this has on the real thing. Life’s lack of attention to detail. The fact that Johnson has apparently left secret papers in the apartment he has with his wife, Kerry – who has good friends among British journalists visiting their home – shows his complete lack of seriousness and the laziness of a man who believes the results are for others.

So public and well-known that the Prime Minister is a liar, the fact that he is trying to convince people that he is not a liar is in itself a delusion: after all, he has twice been fired as a journalist and as a journalist. A politician who did not tell the truth. Journalist and former employee Peter Auburn wrote the entire book, Attack on the truth (Robbery of the truth), dedicated to documenting their lies. But there was not enough space to include all of them, so he opened an expansion website to get the job done. The only limit that can be given is that men who are so pathologically obsessed with lying eventually lose track of reality so they can lie without even knowing it.

Hence, the most plausible conclusion is that Boris Johnson is both: a liar and a man who does not know how to grasp very clear and basic information, unlike the millions of ordinary people who perfectly understand the laws whose elaboration and communication he was most excited about. Charge and they performed them. No one should entrust the most elementary responsibility to a man with such a combination of qualities, and yet he rules the whole country.

As long as Vladimir Putin’s forces continue to unleash barbarism against the Ukrainians, the argument of the British Prime Minister’s staff will be weighty and predictable. Doesn’t war otherwise show a few encounters and drunkenness at 10 Downing Street? Should we be obsessed with such trifles when children are killed? Do not fall into the trap: clear morality requires that the horrors of Ukraine not be used to soften our protest against the corruption of our democracy, which it is.

Yes, Johnson’s team believes Putin’s tanks saved him. And they can boast of polls indicating that their Teflon-covered swindler has emerged from the election abyss. Which, of course, helped Tories It is the constant failure of the Labor Party to offer an inspiring alternative, instead of relying on the self-sacrificing aspirations of its opponents to achieve victory. But it does matter.

It is not just that there were so many citizens who were unable to capture their loved ones when they were dying, or face devastating and prolonged loneliness and thus felt legitimate indignation at those who imposed the rules. The point is, if the British government avoids breaking the laws that were used against the helpless – including arresting the homeless or punishing children – then it will rightly believe that it can get rid of Rosita by other abuses of power.

Many thought that “one rule for them, another rule for us” was the basic principle that guided British society, but now it stands like a big, twinkling neon light on the core of government.

Translated by Maria Torren Tilak

Source: El Diario


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:



More like this