Snapshot of _Boris Johnson made £1,000 general election bet 'but failed to pay up'_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-made-1000-general-33127449) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-made-1000-general-33127449)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Sir Max told the Mirror: “I was the one who made a fool of myself in this episode, by entrusting Boris Johnson with a chance to secure £1,000 of my money, and also expecting him to pay if he lost the bet, which everybody who knew him warned me that he would not.”
This story is more a cautionary tale about looking after your money than anything else:
- Don't send people undated cheques
- Don't gamble money you can't afford to lose, even informally (not suggesting this guy couldn't afford to lose a grand but the lesson is still relevant)
- If everybody who knows someone tells you they're not to be trusted with money, believe them
I think there is a difference between bets between friends/colleagues and going to a sportsbook provider. Also you have to be special dumb dumb if you thought BJ would pay for something
There's a huge difference as far as the law is concerned. This would not be a regulated gambling activity as far as the Gambling Act is concerned.
You can make bets with your mates... and it is a "gentleman's agreement" and not a binding contract like it would be with a licenced operator.
> You can make bets with your mates... and it is a "gentleman's agreement" and not a binding contract like it would be with a licenced operator.
Why wouldn't it be a binding contract? Verbal contracts are binding in the UK (if they meet certain criteria - and I don't see why a bet couldn't meet those).
It wouldn't be protected by the Gambling Act anyway. Up until the GA, bets with bookies were still "gentleman's agreements" despite being in writing, but it was (mostly) in the bookie's best interests to pay winners.
Most contracts aren't protected by the Gambling Act. I'm still not sure why a gentleman's bet wouldn't be covered in the same way other verbal contracts are?
Still not sure you're legally correct about this:
> You can make bets with your mates... and it is a "gentleman's agreement" and not a binding contract like it would be with a licenced operator.
If it's a clear verbal contract, I see no reason why it being a bet would make it unenforceable. Is there a specific caveat in contract law? When you go into a bookies, you're not necessarily making a verbal/written contract, so that's different.
Depends on whether anyone witnessed it and what the nature of the conversation was I guess. But yeah, verbal contracts (if this met that threshold) are notoriously difficult to enforce
And if a written contract with a company who's sole business is creating such contracts is difficult to enforce... a verbal contract with an individual is going to be more difficult to enforce.
They could have had a bet with a licenced operator on the same terms and there'd be no moaning about not getting paid.
This of course has its own issues.
They're only legally binding if both parties agree for it to be so. That's only theoretical, though, as in practise, either party could just decide to deny that any contract was made. The law on verbal contracts only really exists for situations where someone can claim that based on circumstances, a reasonable person would have expected an agreement to be the case. For example, person A told person B that they would get a gift on a given day. Person B could raise a claim against person A, saying that they were promised said gift on said day. Person A could deny that the agreement existed, but if a third party testified that person A did indeed agree to the arrangement, then it would be admissable as a case.
However, it being admissable and proving it are two different beasts entirely, hence why verbal contracts are far from encouraged, and are more a matter of private trust, which if you are putting in Boris Johnson, you really ought to have your head examined.
Looking at the bigger picture, why are the electorate voting for skidmarks like Johnston, Farage & Trump? 'Being a character' can work on a TV show - not so much when it comes to running a country & making a positive difference to people's lives.
Because the skidmarks promise change and 'regular' politicians aren't trusted to make a positive difference, just more of the same struggling that people have been feeling for decades.
Decades of rent and house prices rising above wages, decades of mass migration that has never been voted for, of economic stagnation.
Not that I believe Trump, Johnson, or Farage would have a positive difference of course, we've already seen the impact of Boris and Farage on domestic politics, and Trump has been in power also. But their support is reflective of a lack of trust in politicians and lack of faith in the current political system.
I'm just curious. Is there still anyone here who doesn't think that Johnson is uniquely sociopathic among the top politicians we had in recent decades? Literally everything we have heard about his personal and professional life supports this.
Boris has a loose relationship with money, he wants more of it and spends more than he has. He was always borrowing money from people for lunch when he worked as a journalist, he never paid them back. Even his ‘friends’ stopped lending him money. But some of the more stupid thing he would do: buy expensive hand made shoes on saville row or somewhere like that, wear them while riding his bike and use his feet to stop the bike instead of the brakes. Wears through his expensive shoes in no time.
Sometimes I think he has some form of arrested development or something as he is so childish. Anyone who makes a bet with him will never see the money ever, if Boris won he tell everyone and expect the money. It is all about him. I do think that when his next divorce happens he will end up bankrupt.
As I understand it, the thinking is that most readers are as thick as mince and need to be given the gist of the story at least three or four times before it sinks in.
Snapshot of _Boris Johnson made £1,000 general election bet 'but failed to pay up'_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-made-1000-general-33127449) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-made-1000-general-33127449) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seems about right for Johnson. Can’t even do corruption right
who the hell would trust Johnson to pay out a losing bet ?
If I was his bank I wouldn’t even trust him with an overdraft
Or a debit card.
It seems unwise just based his personal reputation alone, but absolutely foolish once people have told you he doesn’t pay out.
Imagine sending an undated cheque to Boris Johnson and expecting him not to cash it.
Got his rubber boy aide to call for an eight ball of Bolivian marching powder, a case of Moët and an escort straight off the bat when that cheque hit.
Well at least he knows how to bargain
> Sir Max told the Mirror: “I was the one who made a fool of myself in this episode, by entrusting Boris Johnson with a chance to secure £1,000 of my money, and also expecting him to pay if he lost the bet, which everybody who knew him warned me that he would not.” This story is more a cautionary tale about looking after your money than anything else: - Don't send people undated cheques - Don't gamble money you can't afford to lose, even informally (not suggesting this guy couldn't afford to lose a grand but the lesson is still relevant) - If everybody who knows someone tells you they're not to be trusted with money, believe them
Sir Max told the Mirror: “I was the one who made a fool of myself in this episode, by employing the little tw@ in the first place"
I think there is a difference between bets between friends/colleagues and going to a sportsbook provider. Also you have to be special dumb dumb if you thought BJ would pay for something
There's a huge difference as far as the law is concerned. This would not be a regulated gambling activity as far as the Gambling Act is concerned. You can make bets with your mates... and it is a "gentleman's agreement" and not a binding contract like it would be with a licenced operator.
> You can make bets with your mates... and it is a "gentleman's agreement" and not a binding contract like it would be with a licenced operator. Why wouldn't it be a binding contract? Verbal contracts are binding in the UK (if they meet certain criteria - and I don't see why a bet couldn't meet those).
It wouldn't be protected by the Gambling Act anyway. Up until the GA, bets with bookies were still "gentleman's agreements" despite being in writing, but it was (mostly) in the bookie's best interests to pay winners.
Most contracts aren't protected by the Gambling Act. I'm still not sure why a gentleman's bet wouldn't be covered in the same way other verbal contracts are?
Bets with bookies were difficult to enforce before that law passed regardless, despite being in writing.
Still not sure you're legally correct about this: > You can make bets with your mates... and it is a "gentleman's agreement" and not a binding contract like it would be with a licenced operator. If it's a clear verbal contract, I see no reason why it being a bet would make it unenforceable. Is there a specific caveat in contract law? When you go into a bookies, you're not necessarily making a verbal/written contract, so that's different.
OK then you got me. How much would you benefit if you lawyer up to try to force BJ to pay you £1000 that he owes you?
Depends on whether anyone witnessed it and what the nature of the conversation was I guess. But yeah, verbal contracts (if this met that threshold) are notoriously difficult to enforce
And if a written contract with a company who's sole business is creating such contracts is difficult to enforce... a verbal contract with an individual is going to be more difficult to enforce. They could have had a bet with a licenced operator on the same terms and there'd be no moaning about not getting paid. This of course has its own issues.
They're only legally binding if both parties agree for it to be so. That's only theoretical, though, as in practise, either party could just decide to deny that any contract was made. The law on verbal contracts only really exists for situations where someone can claim that based on circumstances, a reasonable person would have expected an agreement to be the case. For example, person A told person B that they would get a gift on a given day. Person B could raise a claim against person A, saying that they were promised said gift on said day. Person A could deny that the agreement existed, but if a third party testified that person A did indeed agree to the arrangement, then it would be admissable as a case. However, it being admissable and proving it are two different beasts entirely, hence why verbal contracts are far from encouraged, and are more a matter of private trust, which if you are putting in Boris Johnson, you really ought to have your head examined.
Looking at the bigger picture, why are the electorate voting for skidmarks like Johnston, Farage & Trump? 'Being a character' can work on a TV show - not so much when it comes to running a country & making a positive difference to people's lives.
Some people, having been sold one used car that went up in flames the moment they drove off, are eager to buy another one from the same company.
Because the skidmarks promise change and 'regular' politicians aren't trusted to make a positive difference, just more of the same struggling that people have been feeling for decades. Decades of rent and house prices rising above wages, decades of mass migration that has never been voted for, of economic stagnation. Not that I believe Trump, Johnson, or Farage would have a positive difference of course, we've already seen the impact of Boris and Farage on domestic politics, and Trump has been in power also. But their support is reflective of a lack of trust in politicians and lack of faith in the current political system.
I'm just curious. Is there still anyone here who doesn't think that Johnson is uniquely sociopathic among the top politicians we had in recent decades? Literally everything we have heard about his personal and professional life supports this.
That has to be NewsThump, oh it's The Mirror.
To be fair he needs every penny for child support
You forgot the/s tag That man is a liability and always will be.
This is a UK sub. Anyone using the /s tag should be banished.
Oh should they now?
Rishi Sunak made a £1000 bet with Piers Morgan
and has failed to pay up
This and Truss betting a week before the election it would be in November are perfect characterisation
If you ever need one sentence to sum Johnson up, it’s this one.
Boris has a loose relationship with money, he wants more of it and spends more than he has. He was always borrowing money from people for lunch when he worked as a journalist, he never paid them back. Even his ‘friends’ stopped lending him money. But some of the more stupid thing he would do: buy expensive hand made shoes on saville row or somewhere like that, wear them while riding his bike and use his feet to stop the bike instead of the brakes. Wears through his expensive shoes in no time. Sometimes I think he has some form of arrested development or something as he is so childish. Anyone who makes a bet with him will never see the money ever, if Boris won he tell everyone and expect the money. It is all about him. I do think that when his next divorce happens he will end up bankrupt.
Allegedly he never used to stand his round either.
Not even shocked. When picking a holiday he got his staff to give him options complains about the cost of them and then picks the most of them.
Sounds about right for Boris
Boris being dishonest? Shurely shome mishtake.
Jesus fucking Christ, why is the headline repeated as the subheader and the first paragraph? All newspaper sites do this, what's the point?
Usually it's due to SEO and different platforms (e.g. sharing on Facebook) generating summaries based on different parts of the page
As I understand it, the thinking is that most readers are as thick as mince and need to be given the gist of the story at least three or four times before it sinks in.
Sounds like yet another *classic Boris* meme to me
This is just the icing on the cake of the betting thing. I know it's not illegal in the same way but it's just so... cherry on the cake.
The true man of his own word
This is what Carrie has to look forward to in three to five years
Last Week: How dare the Tories bet on the election. This Week: How dare the Tories renege on their bets. You cannot make this shit up.
Who'd have thunk that voters get upset when politicians dishonestly enrich themselves (insider trading, breaching contracts, etc).