Not at all - you don't have to be particularly clever to grasp the logic - perhaps its you who has put a view on it that suits your view point?

I think it is a stretch to be honest, whether you use ‘new’ or ‘more’. But if they’d been upfront and included the caveat in bold and italics, then fair enough. So yes, I can understand the the slightly twisted logic. But I think it is a case of a half truth (being generous) being entirely dishonest because of the half that was forgotten (ha!) or withheld.

On the other hand, I think it is one of those things that is just about within the realms of normal political dishonesty. You can mount an, imo feeble, defence of it being technically correct with additional context. A lot of the poop that comes out of Johnson’s mouth is flat out and unequivocally false.

I fully understood the "get out clause".
However, the way in which this policy took the headlines and was confirmed, before all the back tracking, would suggest that they were, at best, trying to mislead the public and at worst, "mis speaking" (this is the new phrase for lying out of your backside).

These are politicians they never give a straight answer and you have to be able to read through bull. It was like the £300k a day for the NHS - yes it was possible but very unlikely. Like Jess Phillips yesterday - yes you possibly might get a longer sentence for knocking down Winston Churchill than raping a woman but is it probable?

I see that you have your blue tinted glasses on again.
The sentiment of Jess Phillips comments yesterday was right and the message she was trying to put across was that there are huge imbalances in the punishment's meted out for certain crimes compared to others and she was absolutely right.
Johnson is incapable in telling things straight and no longer tries to bother and why indeed should he.
The press and media, so used to his "style" dont even bother to call him out when he's telling lies, which shows two things, the huge bias and in some cases fear, that now exists in the media and the frequency that he "chats nonsense".

It really is a sorry state of affairs.

There have always been huge imbalances in sentencing - James Boulger's killers got 8 years never even getting to adult prison. Jon Venables has proved to be a psychopath in adult life. Lee Bowyer got nothing yet Chev Walker got time for virtually the same crime. When you have a system that relies on a judge for a sentence you will have inconsistencies. The problem with rape its one person's word against another who do you believe - both parties should either be named or not it is not fair that the man is named and woman not? This is not a new situation it goes back for ever.

Domestic violence is a different ball game and those men/women should be locked up for a long time as should those who perpetrate honour (sic) killings.

As for Johnson the press call him out all the time but its not a shock - sadly nobody believes any politician because you know when they are lying - their lips are moving the whole lot of them. MP's simply don't have any public respect at all.

Saturday could have been avoided nobody turns up - what are the police supposed to do? You can't fine a load of kids for an illegal rave yet allow thousands to congregate in a park and ignore it. Anyone who thinks there weren't deliberate agitators out to cause trouble is delusional - the ginger-haired lady in all the photos - I rest my case.

Yes there are imbalances in sentencing, no doubt whatsoever.
As you say, the judge has plenty of discretion and as such, some sentences seem to be wrong.

The point that Jess Phillips made was bang on the money and for people to to be given longer sentences for damaging public property , compared to rape or worse, seems crazy and it's interesting how influence can come from "above" in certain circumstances, also, the "quality" of the defence, which comes down to pound notes, will always be a major factor, which skews the justice system in favour of the better off.

As for the vigil on Saturday, it was nailed on to end badly and of course it did.

Looks like we can’t have peaceful protests now. Facism is well and truly alive in this country.

protests that cry that all men are violent murderers and should not be allowed out after 6pm, doesn't sound peaceful to me, sounds a symptom of the ridiculous world created in recent times.

A legal clampdown on protests, in advance of some new form of austerity, does make you wonder what is coming our way.
No question that there will be some very difficult choices, between tax increases (in whatever form they take) and cuts to public services and it would appear that, just as Thatcher clamped down on the Unions, Boris & Co are going to try and gag the masses, it should be interesting.
It has to be said that the Tory ethos would always be cuts in spending instead of tax increases and there is certainly a huge fiscal hole to fill.

Strangely, to get through the pandemic, they have adopted some strong socialist policies, with increases to benefits, the furlough scheme and a huge increase in public spending and it will be fascinating how they return to "normal".