No 10 rule breaking gatherings during 2020.

[21C101]

I think the best thing to come out of this is that it has discredited the whole concept of lockdown.

People on the surface are furious at the hypocracy but under the surface it us hitting home that they had the inside information on how bad this was, yet they came to work and had a social. Why were *they* not frightened of catching it, so why am I frightened. Sod It.

The Jubilee line test this week, doing the same zone 2-1 journey both ways in the peaks, indicates that people have said sod it. Monday. Quiet as the grave. Tuesday. Uptick. Wednesday. Struggled to get a seat and platform busy.

 

[Typhoon]

I would be interested in when tonight's Party Political was put together. Odd time of the year to have it and I would be surprised if anyone changed their opinion of Johnson. They might be convinced that the Conservatives are the answer but not Johnson.

Why is Chope doing this? He isn’t a politician hoping for advancement so has nothing to gain or lose by defending or criticising any individual. Is it attention seeking? Contrariness? Stupidity?

Maybe he fancies some prestigious job that he thinks Johnson can help him with but he has a bad track record there as Fox, Grayling and Whittingdale will testify?

 

[Ediswan]

I known the title of this thread is working hard to keep up. Should it be 'potentially illegal gatherings' rather than 'parties' ?

 

[Peterthegreat]

Why is Chope doing this? He isn’t a politician hoping for advancement so has nothing to gain or lose by defending or criticising any individual. Is it attention seeking? Contrariness? Stupidity?

All of them!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2022 ==

I known the title of this thread is working hard to keep up. Should it be 'potentially illegal gatherings' rather than 'parties' ?

Why "potentially"?

 

[Ediswan]

Why "potentially"?

Simply quoting the existing thread title.

 

[dgl]

All of them!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2022 ==


Why "potentially"?

Because they were for "work" purposes, so compleatly legal, I mean who does not drink at work?
Plus our leader said it was all above board and he would never lie would he?

 

[MikeWM]

Clearly this is indefensible behaviour - even Johnson appears to know that with his rather careful legalistic apology today.

However, you do have to ask why this is coming out now, 20 months after the events happened. Who is leaking this and what are they trying to achieve?

Is it entirely coincidental that currently - and astonishingly - even under 'plan B', England is currently the freest country in what we previously would have called the 'western world' - and if plan B goes away in two weeks time, will be closer to 'normal' than pretty much anywhere else. Particularly now that Sweden has bizarrely fallen at the last hurdle - immediately after they had *a change in Prime Minister, from within the same party*.

I have many, many issues with Johnson's handling of the last two years, but despite that we are now where we are and England is clearly doing much better than almost everywhere else. Is whoever is behind this campaign to get rid of Johnson likely to be in favour of more restrictions or less? I know what I think is most likely...

 

[bramling]

Honestly, you won't like this - but I know for a fact the majority of us on here have broken one rule or another. Certainly, I know a lot of us here refuse to wear masks, and with good reason, because they do contribute to an authoritarian society. I am not going to be hypocritical and scream rage because they've broken rules when I have too. I don't believe it's any worse just because they're politicians.

I can’t agree with that. They made the rules, that is the difference.

We simply cannot have a situation where the people making the rules break them. This isn’t just a case of accidentally forgetting to put a mask on somewhere.

The other problem is Johnson appears to have lied about it, specifically to Parliament. He might have stood more chance of getting away with it had he come clean, instead of waiting for evidence to emerge. This is where serious questions about suitability for role arise. Firstly if he’s lied about this then what else has he lied about? Secondly is this person’s judgement sound enough to have access to nuclear weapons? And thirdly it shows how little respect he has for the British public, believing they can be fobbed off with any old rubbish. Just like Stanley put down the British population with his comments about illiteracy.

He has got through life by thinking he can get out of any situation by using his “Boris” persona. In his current job he’s finding this is now insufficient. Like at the CBI speech where he cracked the Peppa Pig joke - virtually no one laughed, and the few who did laugh did so awkwardly.

Out of depth, it’s as simple as that.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Clearly this is indefensible behaviour - even Johnson appears to know that with his rather careful legalistic apology today.

However, you do have to ask why this is coming out now, 20 months after the events happened. Who is leaking this and what are they trying to achieve?

Is it entirely coincidental that currently - and astonishingly - even under 'plan B', England is currently the freest country in what we previously would have called the 'western world' - and if plan B goes away in two weeks time, will be closer to 'normal' than pretty much anywhere else. Particularly now that Sweden has bizarrely fallen at the last hurdle - immediately after they had *a change in Prime Minister, from within the same party*.

I have many, many issues with Johnson's handling of the last two years, but despite that we are now where we are and England is clearly doing much better than almost everywhere else. Is whoever is behind this campaign to get rid of Johnson likely to be in favour of more restrictions or less? I know what I think is most likely...

Sunak is one of the favoured replacements and he is more anti restriction than Boris. Lets remember Boris hasn't had a damascene conversion here he was rightly backed into a corner by rebels in his own party.

 

[bramling]

Clearly this is indefensible behaviour - even Johnson appears to know that with his rather careful legalistic apology today.

However, you do have to ask why this is coming out now, 20 months after the events happened. Who is leaking this and what are they trying to achieve?

Is it entirely coincidental that currently - and astonishingly - even under 'plan B', England is currently the freest country in what we previously would have called the 'western world' - and if plan B goes away in two weeks time, will be closer to 'normal' than pretty much anywhere else. Particularly now that Sweden has bizarrely fallen at the last hurdle - immediately after they had *a change in Prime Minister, from within the same party*.

I have many, many issues with Johnson's handling of the last two years, but despite that we are now where we are and England is clearly doing much better than almost everywhere else. Is whoever is behind this campaign to get rid of Johnson likely to be in favour of more restrictions or less? I know what I think is most likely...

Not if it’s coming from the Sunak direction, perhaps?

If it’s coming from Cummings then it’s simply intended to destroy Johnson, and no more.

I don’t think we need to worry too much about restrictions, the backbenchers will take care of that. I’d be more bothered about Drakeford / Sturgeon / Labour on that. The other issue here is with the continuing Johnson self-destruction, the polls continue to slip. This essentially gives pro-restriction Labour greater political momentum, albeit that they seem to be doing a pretty good job of squandering this.

 

[MikeWM]

Sunak is one of the favoured replacements and he is more anti restriction than Boris. Lets remember Boris hasn't had a damascene conversion here he was rightly backed into a corner by rebels in his own party.

Sunak did seem rather less keen on restrictions in the past, but who knows if/when he gets the biggest chair. I'm concerned he would turn out to be an accelerated version of Gordon Brown - forced as PM to face the consequences of the decisions he made as chancellor, and I think most would agree that didn't go terribly well for Brown.

I do think how much of where we are is down to Johnson personally and how much is down to his rather weak leadership and/or the Tory backbench rebels is highly debateable, and I change my opinion on that myself quite regularly. But as I say, we are where we are, and incredibly we're doing rather better than most right now.

 

[bramling]

Sunak did seem rather less keen on restrictions in the past, but who knows if/when he gets the biggest chair. I'm concerned he would turn out to be an accelerated version of Gordon Brown - forced as PM to face the consequences of the decisions he made as chancellor, and I think most would agree that didn't go terribly well for Brown.

I do think how much of where we are is down to Johnson personally and how much is down to his rather weak leadership and/or the Tory backbench rebels is highly debateable, and I change my opinion on that myself quite regularly. But as I say, we are where we are, and incredibly we're doing rather better than most right now.

Whatever happens is going to be a right mess. This is probably the only reason Johnson continues to hang in there.

 

[kristiang85]

Clearly this is indefensible behaviour - even Johnson appears to know that with his rather careful legalistic apology today.

However, you do have to ask why this is coming out now, 20 months after the events happened. Who is leaking this and what are they trying to achieve?

Is it entirely coincidental that currently - and astonishingly - even under 'plan B', England is currently the freest country in what we previously would have called the 'western world' - and if plan B goes away in two weeks time, will be closer to 'normal' than pretty much anywhere else. Particularly now that Sweden has bizarrely fallen at the last hurdle - immediately after they had *a change in Prime Minister, from within the same party*.

I have many, many issues with Johnson's handling of the last two years, but despite that we are now where we are and England is clearly doing much better than almost everywhere else. Is whoever is behind this campaign to get rid of Johnson likely to be in favour of more restrictions or less? I know what I think is most likely...

All the previous leaks have happened at times which have only helped "our" cause (going back to Hancock), so I don't think it is a coordinated attempt at getting pro restriction people into power. I think the party thing has just grown legs now, so it has gone beyond the original leakers. There are lots of people in the civil service who want to get rid of Boris, so one of them might be responsible for the email. But the previous leaks seemed to have impeccable political timing. That's my theory anyway.

I can’t agree with that. They made the rules, that is the difference.

We simply cannot have a situation where the people making the rules break them. This isn’t just a case of accidentally forgetting to put a mask on somewhere.

The other problem is Johnson appears to have lied about it, specifically to Parliament. He might have stood more chance of getting away with it had he come clean, instead of waiting for evidence to emerge. This is where serious questions about suitability for role arise. Firstly if he’s lied about this then what else has he lied about? Secondly is this person’s judgement sound enough to have access to nuclear weapons? And thirdly it shows how little respect he has for the British public, believing they can be fobbed off with any old rubbish. Just like Stanley put down the British population with his comments about illiteracy.

He has got through life by thinking he can get out of any situation by using his “Boris” persona. In his current job he’s finding this is now insufficient. Like at the CBI speech where he cracked the Peppa Pig joke - virtually no one laughed, and the few who did laugh did so awkwardly.

Out of depth, it’s as simple as that.

Agreed on your first paragraphs. The fact is we all broke rules pretty much, but us normal people who were caught were fined and/or prosecuted.

Cummings, Hancock and Stratton paid for their various misdeeds with their jobs - on the instruction of Johnson. So he should not be immune either.

As for the Peppa Pig incident, I still think he put that on knowing it would distract from the Tories cutting social care funding that same day. It meant the nation was talking about Peppa Pig all day, and not what would be a very unpopular policy announcement.

 

[bramling]

All the previous leaks have happened at times which have only helped "our" cause (going back to Hancock), so I don't think it is a coordinated attempt at getting pro restriction people into power. I think the party thing has just grown legs now, so it has gone beyond the original leakers. There are lots of people in the civil service who want to get rid of Boris, so one of them might be responsible for the email. But the previous leaks seemed to have impeccable political timing. That's my theory anyway.



Agreed on your first paragraphs. The fact is we all broke rules pretty much, but us normal people who were caught were fined and/or prosecuted.

Cummings, Hancock and Stratton paid for their various misdeeds with their jobs - on the instruction of Johnson. So he should not be immune either.

As for the Peppa Pig incident, I still think he put that on knowing it would distract from the Tories cutting social care funding that same day. It meant the nation was talking about Peppa Pig all day, and not what would be a very unpopular policy announcement.

You may well be right on the latter. Perhaps the hope was we’d all talk about Peppa Pig, whereas what everyone actually talked about was how much Boris has “lost it”! That part possibly wasn’t intentional.

 

[Yew]

However, you do have to ask why this is coming out now, 20 months after the events happened. Who is leaking this and what are they trying to achieve?

If you can't see that, then you need to go to Barnard castle for an eye test!

 

[MikeWM]

If you can't see that, then you need to go to Barnard castle for an eye test!

Way too far from a railway station for my liking though!

 

[Whistler40145]

Well given No.10 has a hefty police presence they should have enforced the law of the land but presumably people on that detail are selected to keep there mouths shut.

Yes, I agree, but can a Prime Minister overule the Police?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2022 ==

Because they were for "work" purposes, so compleatly legal, I mean who does not drink at work?
Plus our leader said it was all above board and he would never lie would he?

Not me, I'd be dismissed for drinking at work

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There are lots of people in the civil service who want to get rid of Boris, so one of them might be responsible for the email.

I am just wondering as to the service the person is in who was responsible for sending out the stated 100 invites to the referred-to gathering, in which only 30 people actually attended, should those media sources be correct.

Does anyone know what action, if any, has been taken against that particular person?

 

[takno]

Clearly this is indefensible behaviour - even Johnson appears to know that with his rather careful legalistic apology today.

However, you do have to ask why this is coming out now, 20 months after the events happened. Who is leaking this and what are they trying to achieve?

Is it entirely coincidental that currently - and astonishingly - even under 'plan B', England is currently the freest country in what we previously would have called the 'western world' - and if plan B goes away in two weeks time, will be closer to 'normal' than pretty much anywhere else. Particularly now that Sweden has bizarrely fallen at the last hurdle - immediately after they had *a change in Prime Minister, from within the same party*.

I have many, many issues with Johnson's handling of the last two years, but despite that we are now where we are and England is clearly doing much better than almost everywhere else. Is whoever is behind this campaign to get rid of Johnson likely to be in favour of more restrictions or less? I know what I think is most likely...

I've got many of the same concerns.

On Sweden I get the impression that the response of a large proportion of the Swedish population is barely tolerant disdain. The prime minister is in sparse control of a pretty incoherent alliance, but even in that context she's making a real mess of it. In all likelihood she'll stagger on like Mark Rutte, but she seems like she's basically a spent force already.

In the UK I agree that you have to worry about the motives of anybody who's trying to get rid of a prime minister just at the point where he's been forced to do the right thing, and to a large extent I hope he can stagger through to the 26th just to see the plan B restrictions out.

It's really not doing us any favours though, having the eminently sensible decisions to dump pointless and counterproductive NPIs fronted by a man who most people now regard as a reprehensible idiot.

 

[DelayRepay]

Honestly, you won't like this - but I know for a fact the majority of us on here have broken one rule or another. Certainly, I know a lot of us here refuse to wear masks, and with good reason, because they do contribute to an authoritarian society. I am not going to be hypocritical and scream rage because they've broken rules when I have too. I don't believe it's any worse just because they're politicians.

It is worse because they are the ones that made the rules, they are the ones that told the Police to enforce the rules, and they are the ones who went on TV practically every day to tell us we must comply with the rules otherwise the NHS would collapse and we would be personally responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths. They are the ones who told us we should report our neighbours to the Police if we saw them breaking the rules.

I also think during Lockdown 1, the majority of people did follow the rules. Some, at that time, will have believed the rules were necessary. Some, like me, will have believed we should comply with the law, including laws that we may not personally agree with. Some will have been scared of getting caught. Some, including those who wanted to visit dying relatives or who needed to organise funerals had no choice but to follow the rules.

So the hypocrites are not those who complain about the Prime Minister breaking the rules (and/or knowingly allowing the rules to be broken in Downing Street). The hypocrite is the Prime Minister who imposed these rules on us and then did not follow them himself. And, when caught, tries to lie his way out of the situation. 'I thought it was a work event'. Really? Either he's incredibly stupid, or he thinks everyone else is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2022 ==

I am just wondering as to the service the person is in who was responsible for sending out the stated 100 invites to the referred-to gathering, in which only 30 people actually attended, should those media sources be correct.

Does anyone know what action, if any, has been taken against that particular person?

None, yet. They are waiting for the outcome of the inquiry.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is worse because they are the ones that made the rules, they are the ones that told the Police to enforce the rules.

If that be the case, the police have the full authority of the Government to carry out actions against anyone of any colour or creed who deliberately chose to ignore those rules from all sections of society. If the police, as has been reported, do not act against anyone caught breaching those rules, then is it not a clear case of those in top echelons of the police force in the areas where the said offences have been committed to face charges of wilful breach of their duty?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2022 ==

None, yet. They are waiting for the outcome of the inquiry.

That did not stop all parts of the media carry out their current campaign.

 

[island]

Why "potentially"?

Until and unless a court or other competent authority finds that the law was broken, a statement on the forum that states a certain set of people broke the law leaves the forum open to a defamation writ from any of those people.

 

[DelayRepay]

If that be the case, the police have the full authority of the Government to carry out actions against anyone of any colour or creed who deliberately chose to ignore those rules from all sections of society. If the police, as has been reported, do not act against anyone caught breaching those rules, then is it not a clear case of those in top echelons of the police force in the areas where the said offences have been committed to face charges of wilful breach of their duty?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2022 ==

Yes. Police Officers based at Downing Street will have known what was going on, and failed to enforce the law. Yet their colleagues elsewhere were happily handing out fines to people for sitting on park benches. This highlights the hypocrisy of the Met and is made worse by their claims that they do not investigate crimes that happened in the past. They also claimed there was no evidence of wrong doing - given we now have photographs and emails and an admission from the Prime Minister that there was a party, they clearly did not look very hard.

If there is to be a police investigation, it ought to be by another force, not the Met.

That did not stop all parts of the media carry out their current campaign.

Without the media, there would not be an enquiry. The PM would still be denying there were any parties, and assuring us that all rules were followed. Perhaps if he had admitted and apologised for these serious errors of judgement when the stories first started to surface, it would have all blown over by now. He has made it worse with his constant lies.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If there is to be a police investigation, it ought to be by another force, not the Met.

That is the standard Police procedure followed, in such cases.

 

[nw1]

Honestly, you won't like this - but I know for a fact the majority of us on here have broken one rule or another. Certainly, I know a lot of us here refuse to wear masks, and with good reason, because they do contribute to an authoritarian society. I am not going to be hypocritical and scream rage because they've broken rules when I have too. I don't believe it's any worse just because they're politicians.

But the thing is that they are the ones being hypocritical.

Johnson and Hancock spent most of the past two years telling us what to do, and appear to have broken their own rules.

It's not just like Joe Bloggs going out for a walk for 1 hour and 10 minutes on his own, or Jane Bloggs drinking coffee on her own in a park.

They are hypocritical and they are sanctimonious - traits which sadly, seem to be a part of the make-up of most senior politicians. (Less so for backbench MPs, perhaps)

 

[DelayRepay]

That is the standard Police procedure followed, in such cases.

But not in this case - the standard Police procedure appears to have been to decline to investigate the allegations citing a lack of evidence, despite there having been no investigation to determine whether there was, in fact, any evidence.

 

[dgl]

I reckon a lot of the lack of evidence involves certian people with in the Met being told ther is no evidence and that it would be in tehir best interests if they don't go looking.
Bit like burns when he is being investigated by the nuclear regulators.

 

[nw1]

Why is Chope doing this? He isn’t a politician hoping for advancement so has nothing to gain or lose by defending or criticising any individual. Is it attention seeking? Contrariness? Stupidity?

As a hard Brexiter, he loves Johnson? Well, at least I would have said that until he rebelled against Johnson last month.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Remember also how the Government put out messages implying that drinking takeaway coffees outside or visiting the supermarket for 'non essential' items was tantamount to manslaughter.

Can you give a link to this, please.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2022 ==

But not in this case - the standard Police procedure appears to have been to decline to investigate the allegations citing a lack of evidence, despite there having been no investigation to determine whether there was, in fact, any evidence.

I think you have misunderstood what I said. I was making reference to the fact that a police force never investigates its own misfeasance, but it is always investigated by another police force.

 

[nw1]

Can you give a link to this, please.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2022 ==

This one:

The new Covid-19 ad campaign blames the public for the government’s failures

It is not the public who should be forced to look patients in the eye and think hard about their actions – it is the government.

www.newstatesman.com