Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Is that what passes for "committing crimes" in the UK these days?

It’s particularly galling when the prime minister introduces very strict regulations, that even the queen has to abide by (infamously mourning for her husband alone), and then members of the administration throw large parties at the prime minister’s residence.

Sure, it’s not that bad from an absolute perspective, and probably no one was hurt by it, but the public generally expects individual members of the government to abide by the law no matter what.

Of course, the other crime, that requires him to resign is lying to Parliament, except he changed the ministerial code so he wouldn’t have to resign.

Maybe Boris Johnson can go tell people who couldn’t mourn their loved ones, or people who got fined for mourning their loved ones, or grand parents that couldn’t meet their grand kids, etc. how him breaking the rules so he could have some parties and drinks that prevented them from doing all of that was not that bad from an absolute perspective.

I only meant that it was unlikely that anyone got COVID as a result of the parties. The fact that all those people were unable to be with their loved ones while Boris was at an office party is absolutely horrible, and the fact that he didn’t abide by his own rules is reason to resign, as I see it.

Lots of politicians in America violated their own stay at home orders, like Gavin Newsome. While I agree it’s bad, hypocritical, what have you, I wouldn’t say it’s “committing crimes”—even just from the perspective of expecting to be understood by others. I read the OP and thought I had missed some real news.

It was quite literally a crime in the case of Boris Johnson, which is why I called it “committing crimes.” For Gavin Newsom, my understanding is that it technically was abiding by the rules because the restaurant was open air, but I’m not super familiar with the case. If it actually was against the rules, he should have resigned and let someone who shares his political views but didn’t break the regulations be the new governor. A political leader should at least be legally unimpeachable, and ideally morally too.

The problem with the CA recall is that the only major opponents had a very different political position to him, but switching the state’s political control over a personal scandal seems absurd.

You're playing semantics, and worse you're playing semantics with people from a different country, of course they're going to use words differently than you.

With that said, I think there's a hole in your reasoning -- If the people who enacted these laws had found you breaking them they would damn well have called you a criminal for doing so.

No, OP is playing semantics. “Committing crimes” has a meaning in ordinary usage, and it doesn’t encompass violating administrative rules. Here in Maryland, a speeding ticket is technically a misdemeanor violation of the criminal code. Nobody would call that “committing crimes”—because that would be confusing to other people.

Yes, breaking the law is considered committing a crime. It might not be a particularly big crime and likely wouldn't normally warrant more than a warning. But when the people who just passed the law immediately go and break it, the crime itself isn't the issue. The problem is the attitude that the law doesn't apply to those in charge. It is literally the sort of thing that has caused revolutions. People want a just society.

Under convention, a British MP that is convicted of a crime is expected to resign. No Prime Minister has ever been issued a fine or committed a crime before.

Johnson (and the UK treasurer) were both issued a fine for disobeying the COVID restrictions, while in Number 10 (and 11) the official residences.

They offended numerous times, including immediately before a press conference to deliver more onerous restrictions, and before the funeral of Prince Phillip, where the Queen (like many others) was mourning alone.

The Queen wasn't required to keep the COVID restrictions (she is literally "above the law"), but she dutifully obeyed them.

It's not the nature of the crime, it's the complete lack of remorse or even the perception that there was any harm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com