No 10 rule breaking gatherings during 2020.

[SuspectUsual]

I really can’t understand anyone who thinks this isn’t super-important. It’s the utter hypocrisy of it all, plus the ongoing lying. For him and his mates to be boozing it up, in direct contradiction of their own rules, literally within an hour of one of his ministers reminding the public of the rules, is astonishing, even for this mob

 

[bspahh]

Are you really suggesting that Britain sets up something similar to the post-Aparthaid Truth and Conciliation Commission that was to examine really bad injustices that were committed.

I think he should tell the truth.

 

[nanstallon]

I really can’t understand anyone who thinks this isn’t super-important. It’s the utter hypocrisy of it all, plus the ongoing lying. For him and his mates to be boozing it up, in direct contradiction of their own rules, literally within an hour of one of his ministers reminding the public of the rules, is astonishing, even for this mob

Agreed. The rules that we were all told to follow were a massive restriction on our civil liberties, only justifiable by serious danger to public health making those rules absolutely necessary and without exception. Either the government believed that to be the case or didn't. Evidently we are ruled by arrogant liars and hypocrites. To say nothing of the apparent corruption, by which some people made a great deal of money out of covid. For yesterday's revelations to come just after Britain had the unenviable distinction of being the first European country to top 150,000 deaths from covid, makes it look even worse.

When a PM has been so clearly caught out in his arrogance and deception, it is time to go. No less serious than that.

 

[Yew]

Incidentally, who were the Prime Ministers of Britain at the time of the influenza pandemic that occurred at the end of the First World War and what was the statistical death toll.

Are we counting men who actually died from a severe case of 7.92mm Mauser, but happened to have Spanish flu at the time?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Are we counting men who actually died from a severe case of 7.92mm Mauser, but happened to have Spanish flu at the time?

Not at all. Just those who died of the influenza pandemic as a direct medical causation of it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2022 ==

I think he should tell the truth.

The same type of "truth" that The Orange One believes in and has always held to be true about the result of the last USA Presidential election or "The Truth according to Cummins"?

 

[bspahh]

The same type of "truth" that The Orange One believes in and has always held to be true about the result of the last USA Presidential election or "The Truth according to Cummins"?

He can start with this one:

May I begin by saying that I understand and share the anger up and down the country at seeing No. 10 staff seeming to make light of lockdown measures? I can understand how infuriating it must be to think that the people who have been setting the rules have not been following the rules, because I was also furious to see that clip. I apologise unreservedly for the offence that it has caused up and down the country, and I apologise for the impression that it gives.

I repeat that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no covid rules were broken. That is what I have been repeatedly assured. But I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to establish all the facts and to report back as soon as possible. It goes without saying that if those rules were broken, there will be disciplinary action for all those involved.

 

[nw1]

Its not a good look for the Metropolitan police to turn a blind eye to wrong doing by the government at the same time that they were using their scaring resources on protests for the Sarah Everard vigil.

The Justice Inspectorate report on that

https://www.justiceinspectorates.go...sarah-everard-clapham-common/#our-conclusions says:

Quite. The Met, corrupt in the 1970s, corrupt now, it seems.

I really can’t understand anyone who thinks this isn’t super-important. It’s the utter hypocrisy of it all, plus the ongoing lying. For him and his mates to be boozing it up, in direct contradiction of their own rules, literally within an hour of one of his ministers reminding the public of the rules, is astonishing, even for this mob

Quite. It just seems to be the cap-doffing snobbery still sadly endemic in British Culture. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Cholmondeley-Beauchamp Pemberton-Smith-Smythe-Smith Featherstone-Haugh Johnson, Esq., can do no wrong because he's prime minister and a member of a 'higher class' (not sure if he's actually upper class, whatever that means, technically...)

Time to treat these people like everyone else. Same reason Gove should have faced the maximum possible penalty for his drug offences.

 

[kristiang85]

Are you really suggesting that Britain sets up something similar to the post-Aparthaid Truth and Conciliation Commission that was to examine really bad injustices that were committed.

For heavens sake, if you try to draw comparisons to social events that many people actually did in 2020 in Britain, then reality has really flown the roost, never to return.

I think @bspahh was using a turn of phrase rather than drawing comparisons to Apartheid.

The fact is that I couldn't care less who had a party in May 2020 - those rights to see people we like/love should never have been taken from us. What I do care about is the government telling us we couldn't do that seemed to merrily do it themselves, and not only that then deny they ever did ("It was a work gathering"; "I didn't know about it" etc.).

This email revelation shows that a) It most certainly was not a work-related gathering b) It was very much against the rules set at the time and c) Johnosn lied in saying he didn't know about it, as he was in on the email.

If this was a one-off maybe it could be forgiven, but Johnson's relationship with the truth (or lack of it) has been a running theme in his premiership, and it surely can't be long before it all comes home to roost for him.

 

[Kite159]

Agreed. The rules that we were all told to follow were a massive restriction on our civil liberties, only justifiable by serious danger to public health making those rules absolutely necessary and without exception. Either the government believed that to be the case or didn't. Evidently we are ruled by arrogant liars and hypocrites. To say nothing of the apparent corruption, by which some people made a great deal of money out of covid. For yesterday's revelations to come just after Britain had the unenviable distinction of being the first European country to top 150,000 deaths from covid, makes it look even worse.

When a PM has been so clearly caught out in his arrogance and deception, it is time to go. No less serious than that.

150,000 deaths as a direct result of having Covid or as in indirect result of having a positive Covid test within 28 days of the date they died?

Important difference. Someone might have had Covid 21 days ago but dies in a car accident will still get logged as a Covid related death due to having a positive result within 28 days.

I think @bspahh was using a turn of phrase rather than drawing comparisons to Apartheid.

The fact is that I couldn't care less who had a party in May 2020 - those rights to see people we like/love should never have been taken from us. What I do care about is the government telling us we couldn't do that seemed to merrily do it themselves, and not only that then deny they ever did ("It was a work gathering"; "I didn't know about it" etc.).

This email revelation shows that a) It most certainly was not a work-related gathering b) It was very much against the rules set at the time and c) Johnosn lied in saying he didn't know about it, as he was in on the email.

If this was a one-off maybe it could be forgiven, but Johnson's relationship with the truth (or lack of it) has been a running theme in his premiership, and it surely can't be long before it all comes home to roost for him.

And how many emails do you expect the likes of Johnson gets a day, either directly for him or just CCed into? Can you expect someone to remember every email they might have quickly glanced over before moving onto more important things?

 

[SuspectUsual]

If this was a one-off maybe it could be forgiven, but Johnson's relationship with the truth (or lack of it) has been a running theme in his premiership, and it surely can't be long before it all comes home to roost for him

A running theme throughout his life. It is the kind of man he is

 

[kristiang85]

And how many emails do you expect the likes of Johnson gets a day, either directly for him or just CCed into? Can you expect someone to remember every email they might have quickly glanced over before moving onto more important things?

For a prime minister who just stood up on a podium saying we should limit our contacts to two people outside or exercise on our own, an email entitled "Socially distanced drinks! [Official - Sensitive - No. 10 only]" would/should have piqued his attention. And even if it didn't, surely one of his advisors would have said "Boris, do you think this is a good idea to have this in your back garden?".

There is no way he wouldn't have known.

 

[bspahh]

Quite. The Met, corrupt in the 1970s, corrupt now, it seems.

https://goodlawproject.org/news/met-police-no-10-christmas-parties/ says

Before Christmas, we wrote to the Metropolitan Police asking them to explain or reverse their refusal to investigate the unlawful parties alleged to have taken place at No 10 Downing Street in December 2020.

We’ve now received the Met’s response, which raises more questions than it answers, and strongly suggests their refusal to investigate the alleged No 10 parties was unlawful. And now the Met’s approach is under the spotlight again following yesterday’s revelations of yet another party, this time organised by a top No 10 aide at Downing Street in May 2020. Each new revelation makes the Met’s policy of not investigating these breaches more damaging.

In short, the Met says it concluded that further investigatory work would be required before they could decide whether to bring charges, but rather than attempting to do this, they just closed the case.

Their attempts to justify that decision really don’t make sense. First they say they relied on the Government’s assurances that no rules had been broken. Then they say there would have been no point in interviewing No 10 staff about the parties because they would have refused to answer questions that exposed them to a risk of prosecution. In what other crime would police decline to investigate because the suspected offender assured them no rules had been broken? And those justifications can’t both be true; if no rules were broken, there’s no risk of self-incrimination. We’re intent to get to the bottom of it.

It is not good enough for the Met to delegate their investigative duties to the press. We don’t believe they would make such concessions for anyone else accused of breaking the law.

They seem to be operating a two-tier system, with one rule for those in power and one rule for everyone else. And we think that sets a dangerous precedent with serious implications for public trust.

We’re issuing formal legal proceedings to force the Met to revisit their decision. Those in power broke the rules – repeatedly. They should face the same consequences as everyone else.

Jed Mercurio is going to have his work cut out to get a TV series out of an investigation by the Metropolitan police, if it stops at the point that the accused says they did nothing wrong.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Quite. The Met, corrupt in the 1970s, corrupt now, it seems.

What source do you have to support the statement above?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2022 ==

https://goodlawproject.org/news/met-police-no-10-christmas-parties

How many cases have Good Law Project taken to court and won?

 

[Cdd89]

I think it’s now pretty obvious (though their actions) that the government privately didn’t believe in lockdowns being as strict as they were, or going on for as long as they did.

The only thing that could save Boris if found to be involved is standing up and openly saying this.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think it’s now pretty obvious (though their actions) that the government privately didn’t believe in lockdowns being as strict as they were, or going on for as long as they did.

The only thing that could save Boris if found to be involved is standing up and openly saying this.

Save him from what?

 

[brad465]

What source do you have to support the statement above?

This report from 2021 regarding how the Met handled the Daniel Morgan murder branded them "institutionally corrupt":

Met Police ‘institutionally corrupt,’ report into private detective’s murder says

Panel criticises commissioner Dame Cressida Dick after eight-year probe repeatedly delayed

www.independent.co.uk

The Metropolitan Police has been accused of “institutional corruption” following a £16m probe into the unsolved murder of private detective Daniel Morgan.

An independent panel concluded that the force’s “first objective was to protect itself” over allegations that corrupt officers were involved in the murder.

Mr Morgan, a father of two, was brutally murdered with an axe in the car park of a south London pub in March 1987.


There have been no successful prosecutions despite four major police investigations, an inquest, disciplinary action, complaints and other operations.

Mr Morgan’s relatives called for action on the “sickness” of police corruption, after decades of being “lied to, fobbed off, bullied, degraded and let down”.

How many cases have Good Law Project taken to court and won?

They have won cases in court, however the outcomes are very easy to ignore and/or rather trivial.

 

[Cdd89]

Save him from what?

From the far worse accusation that he believed in lockdowns, but only for others (like Ferguson/Cummings).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This report from 2021 regarding how the Met handled the Daniel Morgan murder branded them "institutionally corrupt":

Met Police ‘institutionally corrupt,’ report into private detective’s murder says

Panel criticises commissioner Dame Cressida Dick after eight-year probe repeatedly delayed

www.independent.co.uk

That being the case, what is the normal legal procedure followed against a police force found guilty of corruption. Do senior police staff from other forces then take over the running of the accused force and criminal charges brought against every single police officer of every rank found guilty of involvement in such a matter.?

 

[nw1]

What source do you have to support the statement above?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2022 ==

It was an off-hand comment, based on the suggestion that they appear to be doing nothing about alleged government wrongdoing yet harrassed the Sarah Everard vigil attenders. This suggests to me a form of corruption, maybe not in the strictly legal sense but certainly in the moral sense.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

From the far worse accusation that he believed in lockdowns, but only for others (like Ferguson/Cummings).

Are you expecting me to believe that no other Head of State believed in lockdowns during the current pandemic....

Have a look at how Heads of State in other countries reacted, starting with China.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2022 ==

It was an off-hand comment, based on the suggestion that they appear to be doing nothing about alleged government wrongdoing yet harrassed the Sarah Everard vigil attenders. This suggests to me a form of corruption, maybe not in the strictly legal sense but certainly in the moral sense.

Good to see that the RailUK Morality Brigade are still carrying on their Suffragette-style campaign of Common Decency....

 

[Cdd89]

Are you expecting me to believe that no other Head of State believed in lockdowns during the current pandemic...

They haven’t been caught for hypocrisy (yet: I’m sure some will).

There are effectively two options (if he is shown to have known/been there):

Either he believed in lockdowns being as severe as they were for as long as they lasted (but thought they only applied to other people).

Or he didn’t believe in lockdowns being as severe for as long (there is no reason outdoor mixing should have even banned in May), but didn’t feel politically safe in easing sooner due to the media / opposition / public still being in lockdown mood.

The first option makes him a despicable person of the sort I would file with Ferguson and Cummings, as well as the worst despots of authoritarian states. The second makes him a coward who lacks the courage of his convictions. I could forgive the latter but not the former.

 

[MikeWM]

Johnson clearly does himself no favours with this sort of thing, and I'm certainly no fan of hypocrisy or indeed Johnson himself.

I would point out however that the way in which this stuff has been leaked rather blatantly shows that someone is trying to bring him down - and for those of us on the anti-restriction side, all I'll say on that note is look to *every* country that has changed government and/or leader in the last 12 months throughout the world, in pretty much every case *immediately* afterwards things have got *substantially* worse in terms of restrictions.

There is an agenda here, and so while I do have serious issues with Johnson's behaviour, I'm not going to try to help whoever it is trying to remove him, as that would almost certainly make things worse for us.

 

[richa2002]

Johnson clearly does himself no favours with this sort of thing, and I'm certainly no fan of hypocrisy or indeed Johnson himself.

I would point out however that the way in which this stuff has been leaked rather blatantly shows that someone is trying to bring him down - and for those of us on the anti-restriction side, all I'll say on that note is look to *every* country that has changed government and/or leader in the last 12 months throughout the world, in pretty much every case *immediately* afterwards things have got *substantially* worse in terms of restrictions.

There is an agenda here, and so while I do have serious issues with Johnson's behaviour, I'm not going to try to help whoever it is trying to remove him, as that would almost certainly make things worse for us.

To be generous to Johnson, I would also agree with this. There could be many who are unhappy with his decision not to go in a lot harder over the past month or even last summer/autumn when there were zero restrictions. As things stand, I see no better alternative, as depressing as that is. Remove Johnson and all you'll get is someone even worse.

That said, still wouldn't vote for the Tories in a million years. No-one should ever vote for the "best of the worst", it should be a positive vote otherwise you endorse mediocrity and the horrors of our current political class.

 

[MikeWM]

That said, still wouldn't vote for the Tories in a million years. No-one should ever vote for the "best of the worst", it should be a positive vote otherwise you endorse mediocrity and the horrors of our current political class.

Oh, I agree with that entirely. I won't be voting for any of the 'mainstream' parties for some considerable time in the future, if ever again.

 

[nw1]

Johnson clearly does himself no favours with this sort of thing, and I'm certainly no fan of hypocrisy or indeed Johnson himself.

I would point out however that the way in which this stuff has been leaked rather blatantly shows that someone is trying to bring him down - and for those of us on the anti-restriction side, all I'll say on that note is look to *every* country that has changed government and/or leader in the last 12 months throughout the world, in pretty much every case *immediately* afterwards things have got *substantially* worse in terms of restrictions.

There is an agenda here, and so while I do have serious issues with Johnson's behaviour, I'm not going to try to help whoever it is trying to remove him, as that would almost certainly make things worse for us.

Might depend on the timing. If Johnson goes in the spring, for example, Omicron will be behind us and issues besides Covid will be forefront on the agenda, I suspect. So whoever his replacement is, I suspect there will be little appetite from the public for more restrictions by then. I rather suspect this will also be the case around the rest of Europe and the western world, come spring/summer, with Covid rates much lower than now, there will be little appetite for vaccine passports, lockdowns, pseudo-lockdowns, travel restrictions, and other 'hard' restrictions. Unless, of course, politicians inflate the situation in the spring and summer to be much worse than it is, in order to distract us from the economic effects which will be more at the forefront by then I suspect.

I'm not sure who his immediate replacement would be, but I'd guess someone like Sunak who isn't particularly pro-restriction in any case?

 

[Eyersey468]

Oh, I agree with that entirely. I won't be voting for any of the 'mainstream' parties for some considerable time in the future, if ever again.

Nor me

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Before I stand accused in the minds of website members about being heartless about people really affected by Covid-19 and its variants, with hospitalisation in same cases and others in care homes unable to be visited by loving family members when restrictions came into force, my good lady wife to whom I had been married for 46 years, who had been afflicted by Vascular Dementia from the end of 2018 which grew steadily worse each month was finally admitted as a full-time resident into a specialist nursing home in March 2021 and at that time, full lockdown meant the end of family visiting that lasted for four months and then after that, only a single nominated family member could visit.

My wife died in the first week of November 2021 in the nursing home and such was the effects upon the grave-diggers (we needed a new family grave) who were self-isolating, the funeral service and interment could not take place until 22nd December. Had she lived but another seven days, she would have celebrated her 80th birthday.

 

[D6130]

Agreed. The rules that we were all told to follow were a massive restriction on our civil liberties, only justifiable by serious danger to public health making those rules absolutely necessary and without exception. Either the government believed that to be the case or didn't. Evidently we are ruled by arrogant liars and hypocrites. To say nothing of the apparent corruption, by which some people made a great deal of money out of covid. For yesterday's revelations to come just after Britain had the unenviable distinction of being the first European country to top 150,000 deaths from covid, makes it look even worse.

When a PM has been so clearly caught out in his arrogance and deception, it is time to go. No less serious than that.

I fully agree.

 

[nw1]

Nor me

I am likely to vote tactically for whoever is the main challenger to the Tories, though not with any great enthusiasm - unless Labour is completely replaced by a new party.

Not because I admire any of the current parties, but the Tories, IMO, have done so much wrong in the past 40 years I could never vote for them. In particular, their 'hard border' version of Brexit is something which, personally, is absolutely unforgivable, and some of its proponents have the cheek to refer to themselves as libertarian.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Labour granted an UQ; of course Johnson is nowhere to be seen to answer the allegations and instead the Paymaster General is trotted out. Fair play to him though, keeping a straight face whilst he trots out lines about how he believes Johnson is a man of integrity etc