Talk:Boris Johnson

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2023 (2)

get rid of mp by his name and hon friba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vauxhallinsig (talk • contribs)

No, because he is still an MP. See the two discussions of this above. Grachester (talk)

Criminal offence?

Some sources say that Johnson's fixed penalty notice amounted to a criminal offence. Some contradict that. Our own FPN article contradicts it, quoting the law: "'penalty notice' means a notice offering the opportunity, by paying a penalty in accordance with this Chapter, to discharge any liability to be convicted of the offence to which the notice relates" (emphasis added). Other more mundane sources for it not amounting to committing a criminal offence: The Daily Telegraph "If left unpaid and if the Prime Minister loses his appeal, it can amount to a criminal offence" (this didn't happen); The Times "it is not a criminal offence unless the fine is not paid" (this didn't happen); a criminal lawyer quoted in The Guardian "they have given people criminal penalties for a series of illegal gatherings, just not the prime minister"; ITV "A fixed penalty notice is not a criminal conviction"; inews "An FPN is not technically a fine or a criminal conviction". At the very least, there is considerable doubt that he committed a criminal offence, so we shouldn't assert that in the article; the current "breached social distancing laws" is more neutral wording and not (as far as I know) contradicted by numerous high-quality sources. EddieHugh (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Your claims are not accurate. The phrase discharge any liability to be convicted of the offence indicates that an offence has been committed (because "the offence" indicates the existence of an offence, along with the concomitant liability to be discharged). The FPN offers a route to avoid a conviction, a word which was not stated in the article text. The Telegraph article does not, as you inaccurately imply, claim that Johnson was not found to have committed an offence (the statement you quote does not contradict what the FT says). Nowhere in the text did it state there was a criminal conviction. The Guardian, ITV, and inews articles all support that an offence was committed:

It is one of the several curiosities of Partygate that it involved huge stakes, not least the political survival of a prime minister, while simultaneously being centred on what are, in strictly legal terms, relatively low-level offences. Yes, this was people breaking rules they had made themselves, which is important,” one criminal lawyer noted, speaking anonymously. But at that the same time, you can very easily be fined more for parking on a double yellow line. The nature of the offences meant they fell into the system of FPNs, which are investigated and levied entirely by the police, with courts only becoming involved if the fine is challenged. [Guardian]

The prime minister and Ms Johnson both said they have paid their fines of £50 each. Fines typically start at £100 for the first offence, but if they are paid within a 14-day period, the rate drops to £50. Fines grow to £200 for the second offence before doubling for each repeat offence, hitting the cap of £6,400. [ITV]

A fixed penalty notice is issued as an alternative to prosecution for certain offences. Originally introduced in the 1950s for parking contraventions, their use has since been extended to a wider range of offences including anti-social behaviour. Once you have received an FPN, there are two ways of dealing with it. You can accept you have committed the offence, as alleged, and pay a fine. [inews]

Only one source claims it is not an offence [The Times]. Given high quality news sources support its characterisation as an offence, it's appropriate to state as much. Please take care not to inadvertently misrepresent sources, like those above, here on talk. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

As quoted, The Telegraph stated: "If left unpaid and if the Prime Minister loses his appeal, it can amount to a criminal offence". The fine wasn't unpaid and he didn't appeal. At the very least, that implies (looking at the logic, it does a lot more than imply) that it would not "amount to a criminal offence" if those conditions were not met. The conditions were not met. But the now re-reverted article states "he committed a criminal offence". Your Guardian quotation doesn't support that. Nor does ITV or inews ("offence" ≠ "committed a criminal offence"). EddieHugh (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems that The Times modified the article in question over time. This is the only snapshot of the full text I could find, and it didn't mention the breach not being a criminal offence at the time (April 2022). Cortador (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, your premise is false. In English law, the prerequisite to be able to say that a person has committed a criminal offence (in relation to the offences in question) is that they have been convicted of committing a criminal offence by a criminal court. Having paid an FPN, you are no longer liable to be convicted of that alleged offence. Hence if an FPN is paid, it will never be proven if a criminal offence was actually committed.

FPNs are a civil penalty you can choose to pay to discharge any liability to be convicted of the offence. Even if you choose not to pay an FPN you do not automatically become 'convicted'. In that case the ball goes back into the hands of the police, who then need to decide whether to forget it, or whether to assemble a case to pass onto the CPS who will then decide whether it is worthy enough to prosecute through the courts.

Additionally, as the threshold used to issue Covid regulation FPNs is so low (the police only have to "reasonably believe" that the specific regulation has been breached) we should not mimic the news media and editorialise our text or use loaded language to imply anything that has not been proven in a criminal court, but simply state the straight plain facts (e.g. "an FPN was issued for an alleged breach of the Covid-19 xxx regulations"). -- DeFacto (talk). 08:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment : Political as opposed to legal The use of the term "criminal offense" by many people and lots of media typically and erroneously attributes a higher-than-appropriate level of the offense's seriousness. In the UK, there are three categories of criminal offences. These are summary offences, either way offences, and indictable only offences. (Before 1967, the distinction was, as in most western countries, between felonies, i.e. serious offences, and misdemeanours, i.e. less serious ones.)

Summary offenses are the most numerous and the most common offenses. Except for dangerous driving or when a fatality has occurred, all driving offences are summary offences, as are common assault and minor criminal damage. A fine imposed by the police for a summary offense determines that an offense has been committed and it can, of course, as all offences, be challenged in court.

Small note on the rest: Either way offenses are only tried in a magistrates' court. They're obviously more serious than the summary ones. The "either way" term denotes the fact that the magistrates' court may either decide that its sentencing powers are insufficient for the case and kick it up the Crown Court, or decide they are sufficient and proceeds, if this is not challenged by the defendant, to try the case. Finally, the most serious ones, only dealt with by the Crown Court, are the "indictable only" offenses: murder, manslaughter, robbery, rape.

In the case of Partygate, Boris Johnson has been issued with a police fine. He has, therefore, according to the police, committed an offense, a summary offense. The outcome of this affair depends on the time limit the person at the receiving end of the fine has to challenge the fine at court, where, if exonerated he gets rid of the record of him having committed an offense, or pays it up and his legal trouble ends although he'd have thus confirmed the commitment of an offense. The Guardian reported that Johnson was found to have committed "five serious offences," i.e. deliberately misleading the Commons when he repeatedly said that no Covid rules were broken or that he had been assured none were broken, deliberately misleading the Commons' privileges committee when he reiterated the same argument, breaching confidence by leaking part of the report, impugning the committee and thus parliamentary process, and being complicit in a campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee. Yet, none of them constitute as these words are typed, a legal offense, an offence tried in the courts, a criminal offense. (See Parliamentary privilege in the United Kingdom.) Members of the Commons are subject to the criminal law except in respect of words spoken or acts done in the context of a parliamentary proceeding; no MP can be, as of yet, charged in court for "misleading the Commons," to give an example. What has been committed is the offense declared through the fine imposed on Johnson by the police, as pointed out by many sources such as The Independent in their report. The political future of all this is developing and uncertain.-The Gnome (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@The Gnome, you are mistaken about the consequences of paying an FPN. It does not imply an admission of guilt.[1]

Also, you do not get any appeal option. The only options you have, apart from seeking a Judicial Review, are to pay, or not pay. If you do not pay within the allowed time, it is the police who decide whether to send your case to the CPS, and it is they who decide whether it can go to court.

Also, this, from Legal Action Group, is an interesting read. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto, when a UK citizen pays a police-imposed fine this means that, de facto -no pun intended- and for whatever reason, they do not contest the police summons to pay. A fine, of FPN in the jargon, is "a form of civil penalty," a "quick and easy form of punishment." The fine is always about breaches of the law, a fact explicitly demonstrated when refusing to pay the fine, in which case, the refuseniks "face prosecution in the criminal courts." Yes, "it is possible to pay a penalty without ever admitting guilt, or any formal finding of guilt," but this does not make the penalty anything less than about a breach of the law, duly remedied through punishment. All phrases inside quotations were taken from the Anthony Gold link you gave, with emphasis added.

I did not refer to nor implied any kind of appeal process. Forgive any unintended confusion from my part in that respect.

If the coronovirus-related movement restrictions imposed by law in the UK contained technical flaws or were otherwise poorly framed, as the linked Pippa Woodrow-article asserts, that is not of interest to the article. Such input would be included, in case its contents merit inclusion, in articles related to the covid pandemic. So, it's an interesting read in the general sense perhaps but not a pertinent read. Thanks anyway. -The Gnome (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not a 'fine' as such, it's a civil penalty. Recipients generally received legal advice to pay FPNs, whether they agreed with it or not, because the risk to livelihood and lifestyle were indeed significant if they acquired a criminal record. So we cannot assume that all, or indeed any, of the recipients accepted that they had committed an offence. And we certainly cannot assume that all, or indeed any, of the police's "reasonable beliefs" would have translated into criminal convictions if FPNs went unpaid.

We should avoid speculation (or perhaps wishful thinking) and not editorialise, but stick to the incontrovertible facts (e.g. "an FPN was issued for an alleged breach of the Covid-19 xxx regulations"). -- DeFacto (talk). 14:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The claim that the prerequisite to be able to say that a person has committed a criminal offence (in relation to the offences in question) is that they have been convicted of committing a criminal offence by a criminal court is both ambiguous and wrong. Ambiguous, because the implied person made "able to say" something, for whom the real or imagined "prerequisite" is ostensibly required, is never specified. Who is it that you think requires this prerequisite? Certainly Wikipedia does not.

Wrong, because while more serious offences are indeed handled by a criminal court, there are a wide variety of offences for which this is not the process used, in fact and in law. This is because it serves no interests to further burden the court system with less serious criminal offences, nor to give wide and otherwise law-abiding sectors of the public a criminal record.

You have made arguments against the article text stating that the subject was "proven" to have committed an offence, "convicted" of an offence, or "found guilty" of an offence. No-one has proposed text that says any of these. Arguing against a position no-one has taken is not a fruitful use of the talk page. The text says that police determined that he committed a criminal offence, which is a fact. Johnson did not dispute that determination.

The relevant legislation is statutory instruments SI 2020/684 and SI 2020/907. As is made clear in the legislation (section 8), and in relevant scholarship, someone breaching the regulations committed an offence.

You argue the notion that we ought to ignore the most reliable sources available (broadsheet news organisations) and not state what they report as fact (not as editorialising). I find such arguments from editors that have been around this website for seventeen years amusing. They are not persuasive. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing,

• Q: Who is it that you think requires this prerequisite [to be able to say that a person has committed a criminal offence]? A: WP:BLPCRIME, A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law.
• You say: it serves no interests to further burden the court system with less serious criminal offences. Exactly, and the law recognises that with FPNs, which are civil penalties, and not criminal convictions.
• You say: The text says that police determined that he committed a criminal offence, which is a fact. Johnson did not dispute that determination. That is not fact. The only way we would have known that is if he had not paid and let it go to court, which he didn't - thus avoiding a criminal conviction. Whether he disputed that, or not, is irrelevant as it never went to court.
• You say: ... someone breaching the regulations committed an offence. But the whole point is that we do not actually know, because it was never tested in court, whether regulations were breached. All we know is (because he was issued an FPN) that police are only saying that they "reasonably believe" an offence has been committed.
• You say: You argue the notion that we ought to ignore the most reliable sources available (broadsheet news organisations) and not state what they report as fact (not as editorialising). No, I'm not saying that. And yes, I've been editing Wikipedia long enough to remember when WP:VER said the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia was [[WP:VNT|verifiability, not truth. Thankfully that has now been changed. What we should do is (and see WP:NPOV#Words to watch) cut through the news media's typical editorialisation and sensationalist style, and convert it into facts.

-- DeFacto (talk). 16:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

BLPCRIME is about individuals who are not public figures. It is not relevant. The notion the subject is not a public figure is also amusing. WP:BLPPUBLIC applies and we simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

Your claim that "police determined that he committed a criminal offence...That is not fact" is incorrect. It is a fact that the police made the determination that Johnson breached the regulations and committed a criminal offence. The police were not in the business of issuing FPN notices where they had not bothered to determine if the offence of a breach of the regulations had occurred.

You claim "the law recognises that with FPNs, which are civil penalties. The law does not "recognise" anything of the sort. FPNs are issued for certain criminal offences, such as speeding, as an alternative to prosecution that avoids the burden for the crown of a court case or the burden for the individual of a criminal conviction.

You say "the whole point is that we do not actually know. That's not "the whole point" at all. The point is, as the text says, "the police determined that he committed a criminal offence". The fact that Johnson chose not to dispute this is of course highly relevant.

There is no "sensationalist style" in the sources used. You appear to be using that as a euphemism for stating things that might be considered detrimental to the article subject. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing,

• No, the first sentence, the one I quoted, out of BLPCRIME applies to everyone. Even celebrities cannot be libelled. You are confusing it with the third sentence. BLPPUBLIC only authorises the addition of robustly sourced allegations and factual incidents made against public figures. In no way does it excuse false accusations such as that a crime was committed when the only evidence we have, an FPN, shows otherwise.
• No, the police only had to reasonably believe it, so not necessarily determine it.
• No, the coronavirus FPNs are civil penalties. See Anthony Gold (again) - FPNs are a form of civil penalty, .... They are not a criminal conviction, and do not result in a criminal record.
• No, the police were only required to "reasonably believe", so not to determine, that a regulation was breached. Accepting an FPN is not an acceptance of guilt - that's how FPNs work. See Anthony Gold agaion, It is possible to pay a penalty without ever admitting guilt, or any formal finding of guilt.
• We can see that their choice of language has led readers to believe things about receiving an FPN that are simply not true. I call it a senationalist style because the articles are (IMHO) deliberately crafted to present information in a way that is shocking or exciting rather than serious and strictly factual.

I think we've been around the loop more than once on most of these now, and you haven't managed to successfully challenge any of my points. So, I'll bow out of this sub-thread with you now, unless you bring compelling new evidence to the discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, insofar as none of your points have any merit in the first place.

the first sentence, the one I quoted, out of BLPCRIME applies to everyone - the first sentence also has nothing whatsoever to say about content policy. Even celebrities cannot be libelled - yes - and as we are saying what is reported by highly reliable news organisations, there is no libel.

reasonably believe; "signalled police felt"; "determined"; "found" - tomato, tomato. We could follow the source exactly and use "found".

They are not a criminal conviction, and do not result in a criminal record - Repeatedly trying to rebut against a position no-one has argued is a waste of time. Anthony Gold's blog is not a reliable source. An academic reference work is a reliable source. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Almost. Please look at Ask the Police under "Q213: What will happen if I don't pay the fine on a fixed penalty notice?", which says:

• "There are two ways of failing to pay a fine on a fixed penalty notice:

"1. You reject the fixed penalty notice from the start. You will receive a summons to go to court. You can either then plead guilty by letter or elect to go to court. If found guilty at court you may be given a slightly larger fine and you will have to pay the court costs (approximately £40).

"2. If you accept the penalty notice but then fail to pay within 28 days, the fine is registered with the court and is automatically increased by 50%. It is then for the court to enforce the fine and they do have the option of issuing a warrant for your arrest if you fail to respond."

Note it says You will receive a summons to go to court. 16:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 86.187.173.73 (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's "Written evidence from Daniel Greenberg CB, Counsel for Domestic Legislation at House of Commons": "it is questionable whether most members of the public understand the distinction between a civil penalty and a criminal penalty"; he refers to covid fines as civil penalties. This gives us the added complication of 'penalties'. So, it's complicated... as I initially stated, there's enough uncertainty here to make it wise to avoid the bald statement "he committed a criminal offence." EddieHugh (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence, and the article text does not use that statement. It closely follows the FT, which also does not make that statement, but rather says "found to have committed". It's better we avoid the passive voice, and specify who the "finder" was - in this case, the metropolitan police. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you know that that was not the intent of my last sentence. We shouldn't ignore all of the evidence that this is more complicated than what is currently in the article. (It shouldn't be in the article, because it was added recently, has been challenged, and is under active discussion.) EddieHugh (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

How have I misinterpreted your last sentence? I took it to mean - not "we shouldn't use this exact phrase" - but rather "we shouldn't state 'he committed a criminal offence' in Wikivoice". The text doesn't do so, it makes a statement about the finding by the metropolitan police. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It meant we shouldn't have the "he committed a criminal offence" part of that sentence. EddieHugh (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

OK. But that is the nature of the finding by the police, as is reported in reliable sources. Issues around penalties - a separate, later question about how the liability for offence is discharged - do not complicate that fact. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources report that Johnson committed a criminal offence. The article should therefore state that Johnson committed a criminal offence. Everything else proposed here in discussion about English law etc. is just proposing we replace information from reliable sources with WP:OR. Cortador (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

We have sources saying he did and sources saying he didn't. The current wording leads readers in a particular (wrong) direction, because "committed a criminal offence" is routinely associated by the lay-person with 'is a criminal', 'has a criminal record', etc. Anyway, the article's in another period of bashing its subject, so, like DeFacto, above, I'll depart this thread. EddieHugh (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We have a single source (The Times) that stated Johnson did not commit a criminal offence, and the only full text of that article we have (which I linked to above) doesn't even say that. You are misrepresenting the sources. Cortador (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah... no. EddieHugh (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this insightful comment that addresses the issues I have brought up. Cortador (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You didn't raise anything that hadn't already been discussed. EddieHugh (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You claimed this was a both sides issue, whereas in reality we have plenty of sources for one case, and a single - at times altered - source for the other. Cortador (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong on the sources (again); see above (again). But I'm not going to repeat it (again) if you respond (again) with something that's already been addressed. EddieHugh (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I refer you to my reply above. Cortador (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

In its broadest definition, a criminal offence is any violation of public laws, including parking offences. This is in contrast to a tort, which is a civil wrong that violates the rights of another individual. In common speech, it refers to a serious violation of public laws.

Due to the ambiguity of the term, it's best avoided.

TFD (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources use this term, therefore this article should use this term. Cortador (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to a policy or guideline that supports your position? TFD (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability Cortador (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to the wording in Verifiability that says this article should use the exact term reported in reliable sources? I note that V says "Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV)." There are numerous sections of NPOV related to use of language in articles. TFD (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I'll do so once you tell where I used the phrase "exact term". Cortador (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

See the heading at the top of this discussion thread. (Criminal offence?) That's the term under discussion. TFD (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess you can't then, Cortador (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

You wrote, "this article should use this term." [07:51, 28 June 2023] Can you explain how "this term" and "exact term" differ in meaning? TFD (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. One of them is that term exactly, and the other that term generally. I don't know what else you expect here. Cortador (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what your point is regarding the question whether the article should say Johnson committed a criminal offence. TFD (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't help you then. Cortador (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Petronella Wyatt

@DeFacto: reverted an edit by me but I have since noticed an inconsistency so bringing it to the talk page. One section of the article (Boris Johnson#Becoming an MP) states "Johnson had been having an affair with Spectator columnist Petronella Wyatt, resulting in two abortions", whereas the Boris Johnson#Relationships section states "Johnson had an affair with Spectator columnist Petronella Wyatt when he was its editor, resulting in a terminated pregnancy and a miscarriage."

The term termination of pregnancy is a synonym for abortion and the wikipedia article on it is a redirect to abortion, so I wouldn't have thought changing that bit so that it reflects the most commonly-used term and title of the article would be an issue– however I'm struggling to find any information about whether there was one abortion and one miscarriage, or two abortions. This Guardian article from 2004 indicates that the Daily Mail claimed there were two abortions but Wyatt's mother claimed there was only one, so the latter seems more likely- any more definitive info available on that so we can make sure the article is correct in both places Johnson's relations with Wyatt are discussed? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Length

At nearly 20k words, this article is in significant need of being made more concise, per WP:TOOBIG. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I made a similar point recently that was completely ignored - Talk:Boris_Johnson/Archive_10#Not_News - but also see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEARTEST. Some of the stuff added to this article in mid-2019 is relatively pointless (for example, a random spending commitment from Sajid Javid when he was Chancellor which is somehow its entire section in this article). Completely in agreement this needs to be chopped and most of the chopping can be done in the extremely long Premiership section. Spa-Franks (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Tatler source

The Tatler source being used for the divorce from Marina Wheeler does not say they divorced in November 2020.[2] neither do reliable sources. Please remove November and keep 2020. 2A00:23C7:1104:F601:A1BE:310B:E1A0:5C81 (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)