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)

Listing Boris Johnson's name?

@Nikkimaria, what is wrong with adding "known professionally as Boris Johnson"?

Without that information, the page is confusing. Guz13 (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Disagree - the lead sentence should avoid unnecessary wordiness and redundancy. It's pretty typical to give the person's full name in the opening sentence even when they usually go by a shortened version. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

How can we get othre editors to give there feedback here? Guz13 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Nickname

How come the nickname doesn't show up in the infobox? Halbared (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Because it is not a nickname. It's lazy journalism. See the talk page archives. Masato.harada (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe in your opinion, I've gone into the archives back to 8, there's no discussion of it being "lazy" but references to the fact that it's his nickname, alongside the redirects and hat notes. There seems no policy reason that BoJo's nickname should be omitted from this page, seems strange considering the hatnotes/redirects. Does anyone else want to chime in? Halbared (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

POV summary of partygate in the lead

The lead contains this sentence: In the Partygate scandal, it was found that numerous parties had been held at 10 Downing Street during national COVID-19 lockdowns, and COVID-19 social distancing laws were breached by 83 individuals, including Johnson, who in April 2022 was issued with a fixed penalty notice. I see at least two NPOV/BLP (particularly wrt WP:BLPTONE) problems with this:

• The use of the phrase "numerous parties" to cover the array of gathering types involved is grossly misleading, not least because it is not supported by the body of the article which tends more towards using "gathering/s". Sure, some sources enjoyed using the word, but the more discerning and less partisan sources were judicious in their choice of vocabulary. "Gatherings" is more neutral. Sure the tabloidy common name "partygate" article title has been adopted, but it cannot be taken to literally imply each and every gathering was a "party".
• The implication that it was "found" that that "COVID-19 social distancing laws were breached by 83 individuals, including Johnson," is also misleading. The bar for the issuing of the fixed penalty notices involved was very low. There were no court cases involved, the police merely had to have "reason to believe" that the guidelines had been broken to issue the civil (not criminal) ticket, and the acceptance of it was explicitly not an admission of any guilt. Also as the COVID FPNs are widely criticised for their inequality and inequity we need to be mindful as to how we portray their use.

I propose replacing that sentence in the lead with:

In the Partygate scandal, numerous gatherings had been held at 10 Downing Street during national COVID-19 lockdowns, and COVID-19 social distancing laws were believed to have been breached by 83 individuals, including Johnson.

-- DeFacto (talk). 18:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable change to me, and I agree it's more neutral. — Czello ^(music) 18:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I have no opinion on parties vs gatherings. Sources on the outcome of the affair use “found” or “determined” and similar. They don’t tend to use “believed”. It would not be a neutral representation of the sources to change the verb to “believed” which means something different. It is misleading to suggest that the met action was “to issue the civil (not criminal) ticket”. A FPN is produced only for criminal offences, and the activity subject engaged in was a criminal offence at the time, under the legislation. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

To put it another way: A FPN provides an offender with the opportunity to discharge any liability for the offence by paying a fine.CPS Effectively, paying one results in a civil agreement that you are not liable for the offence and does not result in a criminal record. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no “civil agreement”. I’ve never seen that term; don’t know what it means other than to wrongly shoehorn the word “civil” into a discussion about the non-conviction discharge of a criminal offence. The other things you claim are accurate but they don’t suggest not following the sources is a good or appropriate action here. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, I was beginning to worry that I was imagining things here, but luckily, after a quick search I found this in the archives from the Covid era:

Stewart, Robin (1 April 2022). "Is paying a fixed penalty notice or civil penalty an admission of guilt?". Anthony Gold. Anthony Gold Solicitors LLP. Archived from the original on 6 September 2025.

It says this in the context of Covid FPNs (with my bold):

• FPNs are a form of civil penalty, but not all civil penalties are fixed, and they are certainly not restricted to minor offences
• It is possible to pay a penalty without ever admitting guilt, or any formal finding of guilt. The police only need to ‘reasonably believe’ that someone has committed an offence to give an FPN under the Covid-19 regulations
• In R v Hamer [2010] EWCA Crim 2053 the Court of Appeal Criminal Division held that an FPN under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 should not be regarded as a conviction that in paying the penalty the Defendant “was not admitting any offence, not admitting any criminality, and would not have any stain imputed to his character.”
• Based on this analysis, it would appear that in the eyes of the law, someone given an FPN under the coronavirus regulations could pay the penalty and then later claim that they were innocent of any crime
• We might not all agree that breaches of covid restrictions were ‘minor’, but its true that an FPN is not the same as a criminal conviction, and it is not proof of guilt

-- DeFacto (talk). 09:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

A solicitor’s blog is not a reliable source. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we use it as a reliable source, I merely used it to inform this discussion by showing I hadn't dreamt-up that notion that it was a civil rather than a criminal penalty.

I still think we need to tone-down the "and COVID-19 social distancing laws were breached" phrase as it is misleading as it is not necessarily true given what we know about what FPNs are and how they are issued based on police belief rather than on court findings. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd certainly support "gatherings" over parties. There was really only one event that could uncontroversially be called a "party". Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

We have now rightly gone back to "gatherings". I'll just note that that is what Partygate itself uses in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)