Yeah, can totally see how it might come across as an incidence of 'lawfare'.

However, the UK system doesn't work like that. It's very very strongly biased to protect people like Boris Johnson from any kind of prosecution. That is perhaps why Boris Johnson is the first sitting prime minister to be fined for a criminal offense.

It's also not something that just came out of the blue. Details about the parties in his office have been being leaked to the press for months now. First, Boris denied any rules had been broken. Then, when videos surfaced, he fired people, gave speeches about how shocked and disappointed he was, and said he had no knowledge. Then, when an inquiry into it started, he said he couldn't comment on further leaks, because he wanted to wait for the results. Then, when a police investigation started, he said he couldn't comment because he didn't want to 'prejudice the investigation'. Then when he actually gets convicted, he makes out that it's not a big deal anyway.

People feel like they are being laughed at: even if the crime itself is not totally awful (although any public official would normally lose their job over it), the principle of being able to trust elected officials to have basic, table-stakes truthfulness, integrity, and honour is under threat.

Since the UK has no constitution, the democratic system is heavily reliant on politicians behaving with a reasonable degree of honesty and integrity. It's not a system with hard guarantees to protect citizens from bad actors. It's heavily reliant on politicians following conventions that protect the rights and liberties of UK citizens. A PM that follows neither convention, nor civil law, nor criminal law, is a very dangerous precedent in that system.

But except of difference of crime from offense, I mostly agree with you.

- Yes, people should not tolerate, when officials break laws.

But politics is extremely sophisticated thing, and you always should consider, who will replace Johnson, and will he good enough for these difficult times.

You missing important thing.

You may wonder, why Ukrainians do, what they do?

I will tell you scary story from real Ukrainian life.

This happen in ~ 2011. Riot in one small village, named Vradievka (Nikolaev district in South Ukraine, really far from capital).

So one day, villagers blocked police building, and demand to quit from job head of police and make investigation. - This head participated in crime (cover gangs), rape women, tortured villagers.

Three days before riot, police captured one women, rape her, than torture her brother.

That is REAL crime system, not tea drinking, about which you talking.

And that's why after that in Ukraine happen Revolution in 2014, and why Ukrainians so much resist for Russian invasion - in Russia all those things are typical life outside capital.

Only specific, that Russians are Nazi, they mostly do violence against other nations.

My feeling is that certain kinds of governments create certain kinds of administrative cultures, and sadly, post-soviet states often end up with gangster kleptocrats, whether or not they are Russian. The fish rots from the head down, and so soon, everybody starts thinking like a gangster. (I mean, Stalin was literally a gangster, so you can see how that would trickle down).

Boris Johnson is not that bad by any means, but I still worry about politicians that test the boundaries of what you can get away with. Johnson has pushed that boundary further and further, and so far, he's been able to stay in his seat. It sets a bad precedent - before long, you end up with all the rules not mattering, and a jackass like Victor Orban in power.

> certain kinds of governments create certain kinds of administrative cultures

Not exact.

- Yes, you are right in that police is SUBsystem of government, so if government changes it will become strong factor causing changes of all subordinated organizations, but exists one huge nuance.

- Nuance is that ALL government subordinated organizations are by definition large - it is non-sense, to create small government organizations.

And ALL large organizations are very conservative in their administrative cultures.

And near ALL government organizations of post-soviet states are in fact, soviet government organizations, just subordinated to new government.

This is so huge strong factor, that governments change their habits to better fit in system.

I know only two exceptions at the moment: after revolution 2003, Georgia THREE times fired all police and recreated it from zero, before achieve adequate habits; Greece and Georgia after step into financial crisis, made first for few DECADES audit of their pension funds and found near 50% of dead souls, so half of their pension funds where plundered, and after that they very fast implemented new regulations and created new pension systems.

In Eastern Europe, things better, because after disintegration of USSR, they was extremely dependent from EU donations, and EU commission used the situation for 100%, to destroy old government organizations there and to rebuild new from zero.

In Baltic countries happened even more - they after become independent, declared that 1946-1991 where occupation, and all laws issued by occupation forces are now annulled (all returned to before 1946), and all people, who live there and have not relatives lived there before 1946, declared occupants or successors of occupants (and they become non-citizens, with limited rights). And then they conducted elections with only "old" citizens participated, and fired all officials who where not "old" citizens.

There was some smell on these, but mostly EU close eyes, because these measures was effective, and because they conducted huge works on REintegrate people declared occupants into new society (after law checks, and learn national language, and pass exams, they got passports).

In ALL post-soviet states except Baltic and Georgia, just saved old system.

Ukraine is new exception, for many reasons, the most important being Russian invasion (which started in 2014), and Ukraine being a nation after about 2008.