The purported huge significance attaches to possible breaches of the Nolan Principles.
ICYMI, there are already a huge number of examples of breaches by Johnson and his Cabinet colleagues in the public domain. People don't care. 2/
But perhaps they do care about the details of the tryst. That, for better or worse, is where the article puts its focus.
It seeks to make a lot of the bond which Jennifer had with Boris (or should that be 'Alexander the Great'). Some examples... 3/
She first met him in 2011.
She says: 'He entered the room, his hair all dishevelled. That’s when I saw the first real magic of Boris Johnson.'
She says that there was an immediate attraction on both sides - physical and intellectual. 4/
She even gives us a flavour of some of the chemistry between the two.
He said, ‘Boris calling Jennifer.’ Then he said, ‘You’re looking well.’ I texted back something like, ‘You’re welcome to look.'
And there's more... 5/
My favourite vignette is not the one where he borrows £3.10 for a drink, or the one about the sock (lost in the throes of passion), or the one about the Union Jack bow in her hair, but instead the one where she talks about the depth of their emotional connection. 6/
This is a direct quote:
'He asked things like where did you come from, what do you want to be? I remember being enchanted with this man.'
Have the love poets been missing a trick all these years? 7/
And there's the romantic meal.
'We had red wine, I had a nicoise salad and he had fish and chips and then ate off my plate.'
I think the phrase is 'fill your boots, mate'. 8/
It is difficult to believe that the love that shone so brightly ended with her calling him a 'cowardly wet noodle', in the UK press, 5 years or so after their affair ended, but I guess the course of true love never did run smooth. 9/
True romantics will be hoping that there may yet be another chapter still to be written. 10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The first is directed towards those who have the chance to interrogate the Govt (media, MPs etc).
Try to explore their position on these sorts of issues - where do they stand on eg breaches of international law and the Ministerial Code, international COVID comparisons... 2/5
...free speech, the right to protest, cronyism, etc etc. How do Ministers etc seek to explain their position? Juxtapose what they said then with what they are saying now.
The double-standards and hypocrisy of the Govt and its outriders - on almost all fronts - is dizzying. I get that it is a deliberate strategy, but really struggle to understand how so many people are taken in.
Just a few examples... 1/7
The sanctity of international commitments, Treaties and contracts. If we are prepared to breach them when it suits us, how outraged can we really be when the EU, or China, or Russia, does the same? 2/7
The Ministerial Code. Breaches by Patel and Johnson are waved away. But breaches by Nicola Sturgeon are, it seems, in a different category. 3/7
In the Sarah Everard case, there is an emerging trope - criticising those who have 'politicised' her death, and intimating that the protests would not be welcomed by her family and friends.
There are a few things here worth unpicking. Thread. 1/9
First, I am not sure on what basis people are presuming to know what Sarah's family and friends are going through, and how they are reacting to the way things are unfolding. My guess is that they have a wide range of views and thoughts. 2/9
Second, it is worth distinguishing between the publicity which Sarah's death and the investigation into it is attracting; and the broader debate about womens' safety, the role of the police and the right to protest. 3/9
Sometimes the news cycle works in ways which are incredibly jarring.
Here are three instances, from the last week, of what may be called 'cancel culture'. 1/5
First, the latest manifestation of the 'war on woke', featuring Piers Morgan and Ian Murray. We are supposed to be outraged by the 'silencing' of these people. 2/5 dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9…
Second, the Government's latest attempt to silence protestors (the Bill is due to receive its second reading on Monday). I don't think that we are supposed to notice the silencing of these people. 3/5 politics.co.uk/comment/2021/0…