Poll: Boris voters - is he camping with a baby?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 68110
  • Start date Start date
What an odd thread. Why would you try to infer that there's a correlation between voting record and whether you believe Boris is on holiday in a tent? Is there some conspiracy theory I missed about him using a body double or something or is it concern over the baby when there's clearly a cottage next door?

I thought he was on permanent holiday anyway, he's nowhere to be seen when the **** hits the fan.
 
And no form of "oh, my bad" when photos were provided, simply doubled down. Ironically similar behaviour to that of a politician.
 
dowie said:
@garnett How is she “unnecessarily far” from the baby if the baby is say in the cottage the other side of a fence from the field/bit of land they’re on?

It’s hardly implausible for the baby to also be in the tent too, it’s a big glamping tent.

Lack of photos? As above these are pap shots not official photos!

You claim there are “many reasons” yet you only give two rather weak ones.
Click to expand...
Unnecessarily far because there's no need there to be further than a room away.

I'm intrigued to know the experience you speak from regarding looking after a baby in a tent.

Your counter to "lack of photos" appears to be "all there are are pap shots" - you'll have to expand on how that counter works.

Yeah, other points would include:- contrary history of no inclination to "rough it", history of turbulent relationship with partner, history of lack of parernal/familial instincts/compulsions...
 
dowie said:
@garnett How is she “unnecessarily far” from the baby if the baby is say in the cottage the other side of a fence from the field/bit of land they’re on?

It’s hardly implausible for the baby to also be in the tent too, it’s a big glamping tent.

Lack of photos? As above these are pap shots not official photos!

You claim there are “many reasons” yet you only give two rather weak ones.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he's pushing the theory of a body double and implying a paid-for farmer report?
 
mmj_uk said:
The UK government hasn't done anything in about 4 years besides most of parliament trying to derail Brexit against the will of the people, is he even in power at this point? I know he has a majority but we seem to be just letting a load of health advisors run the world making decisions that will lead to economic ruin. Last year the Conservatives were arguing that the best way to protect the NHS is a strong economy and this year they shut the whole economy down to supposedly protect the NHS.
Click to expand...

This is painful to read, 'will of the people', derail Brexit, ignoring the pandemic. Oh dear... please go and do some research and come back, or I am sure plenty of people here can help out.
 
garnett said:
Unnecessarily far because there's no need there to be further than a room away.
Click to expand...

But there is no need for them to *only* be a room away.
Who said anything about need or lack of it? Maybe they wanted a night off, since they’re on holiday.

Have you honestly never heard of a posh couple using the services of a nanny?

Example, this tweet claiming they were spotted sans baby:


I'm intrigued to know the experience you speak from regarding looking after a baby in a tent.
Click to expand...

I didn’t claim a strong view either way nor claim experience - I think the baby is a red herring. You’re free to provide an argument for it not being plausible though if you do have a strong view there - you haven’t yet...

Your counter to "lack of photos" appears to be "all there are are pap shots" - you'll have to expand on how that counter works.
Click to expand...

You referred to historic precedents, but the past two prime ministers invited the press on holiday, this trip was supposed to be secret and they’re just pap shots of him in the vicinity not a staged photo opportunity.

None of that gives you any information re: who stayed in the tent so are you implying that she’s not there at all? Note there are claims that they’ve both been spotted.

Yeah, other points would include:- contrary history of no inclination to "rough it", history of turbulent relationship with partner, history of lack of parernal/familial instincts/compulsions...
Click to expand...

What relevance does any of that have? We already know that he was there???

You still having elaborated on what you think happened - do you believe none of them camped? What do you think the tent was for? Can you explain your position here as those last points seem to imply a disbelief that he’s there with his family or that he even stayed in the tent?

edit - spelling (on mobile)
 
Last edited:
NVP said:
Perhaps he's pushing the theory of a body double and implying a paid-for farmer report?
Click to expand...

I think he’s getting into conspiracy theory territory, like the tent was put up and a fire lit just for show? The farmer is a stooge perhaps and it was all planned, he isn’t really coming home early he just paid for the week for the sake of it and actively wanted to stage some negative publicity???

Makes no sense at all, I do hope the OP will explain.
 
dowie said:
But there is no need for them to *only* be a room away.

Who said anything about need or lack of it? Maybe they wanted a night off, since they’re on holiday.

Have you honestly never heard of a posh couple using the services of a nanny?

Example, this tweet claiming they were spotted sans baby:


I didn’t claim a strong view either way nor claim experience - I think the baby is a red herring. You’re free to provide an argument for it not being plausible though if you do have a strong view there - you haven’t yet...

You referred to historic presidents, but the past two prime ministers invited the press on holiday, this trip was supposed to be secret and they’re just pap shots of him in the vicinity not a staged photo opportunity.

None of that gives you any information re: who stayed in the tent so are you implying that she’s not there at all? Note there are claims that they’ve both been spotted.

What relevance does any of that have? We already know that he was there???

You still having elaborated on what you think happened - do you believe none of them camped? What do you think the tent was for? Can you explain your position here as those last points seem to imply a disbelief that he’s there with his family or that he even stayed in the tent?
Click to expand...
You're conflating needs and wants - and failing to explain why a mother would want to be unnecessarily far forom her baby. As you appear to concede, you've no immediate experience if that. I'm not orofessing any kind of expertise but, from experience, that seems pretty odd.

Ive not seen those claims they've both been spotted - links appreciated.

I thought it was pretty straight forward. We were told Johnson was camping with his baby. I've still not seen any evidence of that.
 
garnett said:
You're conflating needs and wants - and failing to explain why a mother would want to be unnecessarily far forom her baby.
Click to expand...

I’m not conflating needs and wants, I quite clearly made a distinction after you seemed to conflate them.

I’ve also given an explanation - perhaps they wanted a night off to spend time as a couple, while on holiday. Again - are you unaware of posh people using the services of a nanny?

I’d also remind you that the tent is in a field next to the cottage and they likely have staff/security there.

As you appear to concede, you've no immediate experience if that. I'm not orofessing any kind of expertise but, from experience, that seems pretty odd.
Click to expand...

Why?

Ive not seen those claims they've both been spotted - links appreciated.

I thought it was pretty straight forward. We were told Johnson was camping with his baby. I've still not seen any evidence of that.
Click to expand...

Now you’re being evasive when directly asked for clarification. Can you answer the questions in the previous post please?
 
dowie said:
I’m not conflating needs and wants, I quite clearly made a distinction after you seemed to conflate them.

I’ve also given an explanation - perhaps they wanted a night off to spend time as a couple, while on holiday. Again - are you unaware of posh people using the services of a nanny?

I’d also remind you that the tent is in a field next to the cottage and they likely have staff/security there.

Why?

Now you’re being evasive when directly asked for clarification. Can you answer the questions in the previous post please?
Click to expand...
So, aside from your hypothesised "night off", were they camping with their baby, or not? It's a pretty straight forward question. No need for so much waffle.

In terms of your questions, I 'm aware that some people employ nannies, yes.

You ask why parents want to stay close to their infant children... I mean... I don't want to score points, but... I'd hope I've been fairly clear about behaviour that suggests positioning a few rungs down a spectrum.

I asked for links and you're not provided them, and instead accused me of being evasive. :confused:
 
garnett said:
So, aside from your hypothesised "night off", were they camping with their baby, or not? It's a pretty straight forward question. No need for so much waffle.
Click to expand...

See answer already provided. If the “waffle” confused you then see the terse answer in the bit clearly marked “tl;dr”.

In terms lof your questions, I 'm aware that some people employ nannies, yes.
Click to expand...

You’re again evading the other questions - can we try for a third time - they’re denoted by question marks.

You ask why parents want to stay close to their infant children... I mean... I don't want to score points, but... I'd hope I've been fairly clear about behaviour that suggests positioning a few rungs down a spectrum.
Click to expand...

That isn’t a question I asked and it’s not clear what you’re trying to answer there.

You’re aware nannys exist and you’re aware that perhaps a couple might like a night off. You’re also aware that had the baby been in the cottage they’re literally just in the field next door and there are staff etc...

I’m not sure why you seem to think that’s an implausible scenario?

I asked for links and you're not provided them, and instead accused me of being evasive. :confused:
Click to expand...

You’ve deliberately ignored direct questions, you’ve not asked for any links, you expressed a sentiment that they’d be appreciated, I simply referred to a tweet which I already included. Have you not seen the tweet that I embedded?

So can we try for a third time...

Are you going to answer the questions or provide some clarification here?
 
Last edited:
Naff8000 said:
Is this the right room for an argument?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, especially when the OP makes a dodgy vague claim then acts rather evasively when asked direct questions about his take and subsequent posts with newspaper reports undermine the implied narrative. Like a farmer literally complaining about the fact a tent was put up in his field and a fire lit, pics of Boris at the cottage, pics of the tent being taken down by security etc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom