Skip to main content

The unedifying defence of Boris Johnson

You would, I imagine, be a little surprised if I wrote a blog in defence of Boris Johnson and his recent brush with the law; a piece which highlighted every individual's right to a private life and pointed out that we've all made mistakes, which argued that what goes on between a couple in their private residence is no business of the wider public.

And you'd be right to be surprised, because I wouldn't, and the reason that I wouldn't is that that position is spurious bollocks being spouted by Johnson apologists who wouldn't know a moral if it bit them in the arse.

You are doubtless aware of the bare bones of our PM-in-waiting's imbroglio. Neighbours called police after hearing shouting, breakages, a woman screaming "get off me". The police arrived, decided there was nothing to worry about and that, as far as the Johnson camp is concerned, is that.

Except, of course that it isn't, in these tribal times, it's not enough that the matter's gone no further, Johnson's mob need an insurance policy. They may well be suffering buyer's remorse, but they're in too deep now, it's Boris or nothing, so the attack dogs are unleashed, the couple who rang the police are outed as Remainers, sneered at for living in a nice house, accused of being part of a left-wing plot to bring down the noble blond beast. Priti Patel gets to spout this absurd conspiracy theory on the Today programme, without anyone contradicting her. A distasteful playing down of the potential seriousness of the situation (a woman shouting "get off me" is "just a tiff") is so bad that domestic violence charities are moved to release a joint statement reminding people that they should indeed call the police if they suspect someone of being a victim of violence. A serious issue becomes politicised, and because nobody is capable of thinking in anything other than binary any more then if you're pro-Johnson you are now, by definition, anti the sort of people who ring the police if they suspect a woman is being abused. This, surely, is not a position anyone who stopped to think for a second would want to find themselves in. In the same way that those defending Mark Field when he grabbed a female protestor by the neck because he's on "their" side were left feeling a trifle idiotic when he was quite rightly suspended, I think a few of the Johnson defenders have got alarm bells ringing somewhere deep in the pit of their flinty little hearts. Because if you genuinely believe that the future Prime Minister getting drunk and smashing up the flat of his girlfriend isn't a matter of public interest then I have some magic beans I wish to sell you. And if you are prepared to vilify people because they show concern over a potential incident of domestic violence just because it's in defence of "your" guy, then I think that both you and your principles need to go for a little walk and have a quiet think.

Now, I'm acutely aware that I, too could be accused of a degree of bias in writing this. I don't like Johnson, I don't like anything he stands for. I find him venal, amoral, corrupt and incompetent. I find it little short of astonishing that the Conservative Party, the party which purports to stand for the status quo, for the family, for quiet competence and for the economy, is preparing to pin its colours to the mast of a serial philanderer with a love-child he refuses to publicly acknowledge, a man whose inability to master the basics of his brief has led to an innocent woman languishing in an Iranian jail and, perhaps most seriously of all for the Tories, who, lest we forget, really, really like money, memorably said "fuck business" when business pointed out that his Brexit plans are....what's the technical term? Mental. It just goes to show that love makes us do crazy things, and those Tory party members are hopelessly in love with Brexit, more so than they even are with the UK itself, if recent polls are to be believed.

But I think there is a clear line to be drawn here, this isn't a moral grey area, it's a very simple question: if you'd heard the sounds of sustained argument, if you'd been round three times and no-one answered, if you heard a woman scream "get off me", would you ring the police?

Of course you would.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Inedible

"He says it's inedible" said my front of house manager, as she laid the half-eaten fish and chips in front of me, and instantly I relaxed.  Clearly, I observed, it was edible to some degree. I comped it, because I can't be arsed arguing the toss, and I want to make my front of house's lives as simple as possible. The haddock had been delivered that morning. The fryers had been cleaned that morning. The batter had been made that morning (and it's very good batter, ask me nicely and I'll give you the recipe some time). The fish and chips was identical to the other 27 portions I'd sent out on that lunch service, all of which had come back more or less hoovered up, we have have a (justified, if I do say so myself) very good reputation for our chips. But it was, apparently, "inedible". When it comes to complaints, less is more. If you use a hyperbolic word like that, I'll switch off, you've marked yourself as a rube, a chump, I'm not g...

Chop chop

I was completely ignorant of the fuss over the edited Trump speech in an edition of Panorama until, one moment later, I wasn't. And the reasons for my ignorance are instructive. I had no idea that the story was even brewing until the surprise Sunday night news of the resignations of Tom Davie and Deborah Turness. As I'm sure you are by now aware, this was occasioned by a clumsy edit in an old edition of Panorama, which has already been on the iplayer for a year. It's a non-story. Except people decided to make it a story. The reason I'd heard nothing of it until the resignations was that I'm not on X, where, apparently, it was all the media classes had been talking about for a week. It was an obsession of the unholy right-wing trifecta of the Mail, Telegraph and Times (who, given that they sent a bloke just last week to interview the wrong Bill di Blasio, you'd think would wind their necks in over factual inacccuracy). It was big news on GB news, all self-contain...

Creepy old men

I note, somewhat wearily, that creepy old men are back in the news, being creepy. Creepy old men, and their apologists and enablers, who argue that their creepiness is somehow the natural order of things. Old men would have you believe that it is difficult to not be a creepy old man. That it is a task of epic proportions. It is not that difficult. It is a matter of intention. As yet more of the grimness of Epstein unfolds, creepy old men are, sadly, a flaccid topic once again. Whether it be pursuing students thirty years their junior, or simply not asking too many questions about the background of the probably legal young woman who you've just been introduced to by your good pal Jeff. To be clear, I am not referring to criminal creepy old men, the ones who actually committed statutory rape, the ones who fucked trafficked hirls. That is not something which is allowed to get away merely with the contempt of the observer.  That deserves prison.  No , I'm referring to the hinterla...