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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 68110
  • Start date Start date
posts defending Johnson
Please show some posts which are purely defending the PM, and not actually a response to your illogical theorem.

As I've said - in the OP and throughout, you need to be very credulous to believe Johnson went on a camping holiday.
Please say why.

Is it your own ignorance to others differing behaviour to your own which makes you unable to comprehend that someone of wealth and importance would still enjoy a stay in a luxury tent, with their new family?

All this credulity you show in your arrogant, obsessive posts make the majority of people reading (I assume) think you need professional help, or at least a spliff or massage or a hug or something.
 
Probably more accurate to say he’s gone on a PR excursion that involves camping and hiking rather than a camping holiday.

In fairness it’s about all he’s good for.
 
Its a giant glamping tent, not some little two man crawl in tent you leave behind at a festival show ground.

Exactly, (and right next door to a cottage they can access for showers, meals, baby changing etc..) this was pointed out to the OP already though.

Apparently voicing an opinon on the matter that doesn't involve Boris being a liar or decieveing everyone is being taken to be supporting Boris... despite the story not exactly being a great one for him given the upset farmer.

@garnett I've tried speaking to you directly multiple times and you still refuse to elaborate on what you think happened here, now you've got some backtracking to do too... apparently despite the points (highlighted in bold) in the previously quoted posts:

I said there was no picture. There wasn't. Now Carrie Symonds has provided some to the media.

Right... thats all you did, you just highlghted that she wasn't in the photos for no reason at all... then commented on his "history of turbulent relationship with partner, history of lack of parernal/familial instincts/compulsions..." for no reason at all...

Keep digging that hole... :D

What is your view? More time on the yacht or in the tent with his baby?

I gave my view... I gave two scenarios, couple spending the night(s) in the tent and baby in cottage or all three spending some nights in the tent... it's a big glamping tent right next to the cottage, in fact I'll tilt my view more towards all three being in the tent now given the security team numbers 6 people... not sure if they did have childcare with them.
 
Last edited:
Please say why.

Is it your own ignorance to others differing behaviour to your own which makes you unable to comprehend that someone of wealth and importance would still enjoy a stay in a luxury tent, with their new family?

All this credulity you show in your arrogant, obsessive posts make the majority of people reading (I assume) think you need professional help, or at least a spliff or massage or a hug or something.
Even the papers who reported it as a camping holiday have shifted away from that description.

I posted a question and it seems to have triggered quite a number of more obsessive types.

You're wrong about my views and I'm not sure you can evidence any arrogance. I just think it's unlikely they spent more time in that tent than they did on the yacht. What do you think?
 
Even the papers who reported it as a camping holiday have shifted away from that description.

I posted a question and it seems to have triggered quite a number of more obsessive types.

You're wrong about my views and I'm not sure you can evidence any arrogance. I just think it's unlikely they spent more time in that tent than they did on the yacht. What do you think?
I'll answer your question when you actually answer mine, it was simple, I asked "why?"
 
Exactly, (and right next door to a cottage they can access for showers, meals, baby changing etc..) this was pointed out to the OP already though.

Apparently voicing an opinon on the matter that doesn't involve Boris being a liar or decieveing everyone is supporting Boris... despite the story not exactly being a great one for him given the upset farmer.

@garnett I've tried speaking to you directly multiple times and you still refuse to elaborate on what you think happened here, now you've got some backtracking to do too... apparently despite the points (highlighted in bold) in the previously quoted posts:



Right... thats all you did, you just highlghted that she wasn't in the phtos for no reason at all... then commented on his "history of turbulent relationship with partner, history of lack of parernal/familial instincts/compulsions..." for no reason at all...

Keep digging that hole... :D



I gave my view... I gave two scenarios, couple spending the night(s) in the tent and baby in cottage or all three spending some nights in the tent... it's a big glamping tent right next to the cottage, in fact I'll tilt my view more towards all three being in the tent now given the security team numbers 6 people... not sure if they did have childcare with them.
There's nothing to backtrack on. I gave multiple possible reasons - all of which, I note you're not denying.

And I've constantly elaborated and answered your questions while you refuse to answer mine.

I'll ask again. More time on the yacht or in the tent with his baby?
 
You're wrong about my views and I'm not sure you can evidence any arrogance. I just think it's unlikely they spent more time in that tent than they did on the yacht. What do you think?

Which yacht and when? Again it needs to be asked - what exactly are you refering to? What do you think happened here? Why can't you elaborate? Just try writing out a few lines giving your take...

edit -

And I've constantly elaborated and answered your questions while you refuse to answer mine.

I'll ask again. More time on the yacht or in the tent with his baby?

This requires some elaboration from you - which yacht? When? What are you refering to specifically?
 
I'll answer your question when you actually answer mine, it was simple, I asked "why?"
Because, as the shift in reporting bears out, and as I've said a number of times, he didn't go on a camping holiday.

I believe he spent more time on a yacht than he did in a tent.

If that doesn't answer your question, please ask it again and I'll try to provide a fuller answer. I'm not trying to evade anything here.
 
I believe he spent more time on a yacht than he did in a tent.

If that doesn't answer your question, please ask it again and I'll try to provide a fuller answer. I'm not trying to evade anything here.

So initially you seemed to not believe he had gone camping, now you have left open the possibility that he did spend some time in a tent... (but more time in some unspecified yacht)... care to elaborate - are you saying he did in fact camp at some point after all?

The narrative seems to have changed (now we've got photos) OK, maybe he's gone camping... but but but *something about a yacht*.

Do you ever stop to think that maybe you had the dubious take here - thus the earlier evasiveness when more details started emerging that undermined the initial OP.
 
Its getting serious now. Even the Gaurdian is on the case.

The last time Boris Johnson went on a proper break, in January, he chose the Caribbean and stayed in a luxury villa on the island of Mustique that rents for £15,000 a week.

His summer holiday, it emerged on Friday, had a studiedly different vibe: a remote three-bedroom cottage on the coast of Scotland – with a tent in the garden.

In some ways, the property fits the bill for the prime ministerial getaway: chintzy furniture, log-burner, a cot, pets allowed, will comfortably accommodate his family of three.

It also appears ideally located to avoid passersby (or, at least, it must have done until a long-lens photographer for the Daily Mail showed up – a development which, it transpired on Friday, forced Johnson to cut his holiday short on Thursday night).

But what about the tent? With Downing Street reluctant to be drawn on any aspect of the holiday, speculation about the canvas yurt abounded. Not least – who put it up – and why did it have to come down? A few possibilities present themselves:

Guest quarters?
If Johnson had guests staying, it may be that some poor unfortunates (unlikely to include the PM himself, you feel) have been exiled from bricks and mortar to canvas and guy ropes, possibly to avoid any Dominic Cummings-style scandal over adherence to coronavirus protocol. But this literalised support bubble would only be necessary if more than two households were present on the trip.

Possibly the security guards were bedding down outside. But if so, the fact that their temporary HQ was facing away from the principal appears less than totally secure, and surely not even Britain’s clumsiest enemies are likely to have contemplated an attack from the sea. Also, there are six in the security detail – and they are presumably massive, so it would have been a squeeze.

Maybe it’s where the political staff were based – Spads on tour, so to speak. This is roughly in keeping with the indignities suffered by the advisers terrorised by Malcolm Tucker in The Thick of It – and after all, we know that Cummings is used to staying in an outhouse separate from the main property.

Was it suitable for the Scottish coast?
Coastal gales, pouring rain and endless midges might make the less stoical among us long for the roaring fire inside – but Keates says bell tents are made of tough stuff. “They’re quite durable, they withstand the wind quite well, they’re well supported, with the guy ropes and everything,” she says. “We tested them out in the worst weather to make sure they’re up to it and we’ve never had a leak or problems in high winds.”

Compare the tautly pristine ads online to the sagging reality as captured in the photo. His critics may see in this image the inevitable tint of a Brexit metaphor.
 
Last edited:
Because, as the shift in reporting bears out, and as I've said a number of times, he didn't go on a camping holiday.

I believe he spent more time on a yacht than he did in a tent.

If that doesn't answer your question, please ask it again and I'll try to provide a fuller answer. I'm not trying to evade anything here.

You ruined any chance of a fair discussion when you decided that people either refuse to believe or are credulous, like there isnt any room for believing something and that something being the truth...

Let's say Boris had no intention of using the tent. What's the point? Why put it up at all? in a location nobody was supposed to know about, why put a tent up and not use it?
 
Because, as the shift in reporting bears out, and as I've said a number of times, he didn't go on a camping holiday.

I believe he spent more time on a yacht than he did in a tent.

If that doesn't answer your question, please ask it again and I'll try to provide a fuller answer. I'm not trying to evade anything here.
I’ll believe you when we get the same level of photographic evidence that the Scottish holiday has got.

I still won’t care though.
 
Because, as the shift in reporting bears out, and as I've said a number of times, he didn't go on a camping holiday.

I believe he spent more time on a yacht than he did in a tent.

If that doesn't answer your question, please ask it again and I'll try to provide a fuller answer. I'm not trying to evade anything here.
Ok let's try that then, colour by numbers...

Why exactly do you think it is unlikely that he spent time on his holiday in a tent?
 
So initially you seemed to not believe he had gone camping, now you have left open the possibility that he did spend some time in a tent... (but more time in some unspecified yacht)... care to elaborate - are you saying he did in fact camp at some point after all?

The narrative seems to have changed (now we've got photos) OK, maybe he's gone camping... but but but *something about a yacht*.

Do you ever stop to think that maye you had the dubious take here - thus the earlier evasiveness when more details started emerging that undermined the initial OP.

This yacht:-


(If this genuinely wasn't a known fact from the start, then I apologise.)

I'll concede that I thought there was an aspect to this where Symonds and infant weren't there at all, which now looks to be the case.
 
You ruined any chance of a fair discussion when you decided that people either refuse to believe or are credulous, like there isnt any room for believing something and that something being the truth...

Let's say Boris had no intention of using the tent. What's the point? Why put it up at all? in a location nobody was supposed to know about, why put a tent up and not use it?
Yeah. Fair point.
 
Ok let's try that then, colour by numbers...

Why exactly do you think it is unlikely that he spent time on his holiday in a tent?
Because he's more likely to spend time in a nearby superyacht.
 
Its getting serious now. Even the Gaurdian is on the case.
For what it's worth, I went to Bequia in January (not far from Mustique) and recently return from Skye (not far from where Boris stayed in Scotland), so I can confirm it is possible for a person to want to holiday both in the Caribbean and Scotland.

I presume that means I am also part of the conspiracy.
 

OK but again... some elaboration rather than a terse reply (in this case a pict/tweet of a yacht) would be helpful here - why do you believe he was on that yacht and more to the point, spending more time on that yacht than at the cottage and/or in the tent? Do you think he stayed overnight on the yacht? If so why?

You've not presented anything remotely resembling an argument to support this assertion. What reason do I have to believe he was say sleeping there instead? And if so why put the tent up?

I'll concede that I thought there was an aspect to this where Symonds and infant weren't there at all, which now looks to be the case.

Fair enough, that was pretty much what you seemed to be implying in your earler posts but without specifically saying so or elaborating on the point when questioned.

The whole point of your thread seemed to be to show that others are credulous but now you're making assertions about some yacht without providing any reasoning to back up your belief.

Currently it seems that the yacht was in the area and that is about it...
 
For what it's worth, I went to Bequia in January (not far from Mustique) and recently return from Skye (not far from where Boris stayed in Scotland), so I can confirm it is possible for a person to want to holiday both in the Caribbean and Scotland.

I presume that means I am also part of the conspiracy.
Ill assume you quoted me by mistake and leave it at that.



This yacht:-


(If this genuinely wasn't a known fact from the start, then I apologise.)

I'll concede that I thought there was an aspect to this where Symonds and infant weren't there at all, which now looks to be the case.
Haha bravo I hadnt even known about that. Your thread makes pefect sense now.
 
Back
Top Bottom