No 10 rule breaking gatherings during 2020.

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's come up on this forum before but haven't got time to seek it out now - something like "Is your takeaway coffee really necessary?" and "Is your visit to the supermarket really necessary?" with photos of people ill from Covid. The implication is that if you do either activity you will be making people very ill, and possibly dead, from Covid.

Theoretical implications of the type you make reference to would be an interesting subject for discussion in a Court of Law should this ever arise.

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

An elderly neighbour in conversation with me made mention of the gathering at Downing Street in relation to the now-stated attendance of Johnson and his wife. If that particular residence in Downing Street is legally the "home address" of the Prime Minister, what does the law state about the attendance of a property owner at an event taking place in "his own home" as a named party to the attendance? Would the property owner be automatically be included in relation to his ownership of the said property?

== 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

Is that link only showing the personally expressed journalistic view of Rachel Cunliffe of The New Statesman?

Has there ever been any legally expressed views made on the implications expressed in the said newspaper article?

 

[43096]

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.

I’m astonished anyone is surprised at the way Boris has dealt with this. We know he is a pathological liar. As his old boss, Max Hastings, has said “He would not recognise the truth, whether about his private or political life, if confronted by it in an identity parade.”

 

[96tommy]

Lets face it, Boris is going to get away with this.... The fact he keeps saying wait for the inquiry suggests he knows the inquiry is not going to find him in any blame and other people will lose their jobs because of it. The inquiry is Sue Gray is not independent in any sense of the word. She has been put in the task of investigating her boss (Simon Case) and his boss (Boris Johnson).

Predictions:
Inquiry concludes that the party at Downing Street was not in line with the guidance at the time
The inquiry will find that Boris didn't know anything about the numerous parties (in his own home)
Boris survives... Martin Reynolds is sacked

 

[DelayRepay]

Lets face it, Boris is going to get away with this.... The fact he keeps saying wait for the inquiry suggests he knows the inquiry is not going to find him in any blame and other people will lose their jobs because of it. The inquiry is Sue Gray is not independent in any sense of the word. She has been put in the task of investigating her boss (Simon Case) and his boss (Boris Johnson).

Predictions:
Inquiry concludes that the party at Downing Street was not in line with the guidance at the time
The inquiry will find that Boris didn't know anything about the numerous parties (in his own home)
Boris survives... Martin Reynolds is sacked

But the point in bold becomes more difficult, given yesterday's admission that he was present (incorrectly believing it to be a 'work event').

It has also been suggested that there are photographs of the 20 May 'work event'. I would not be surprised to see these appear in the press at some point. Whoever is leaking all this stuff is clearly playing the long game.

I think Boris's strategy, on Covid, difficult Brexit decisions and everything else is to try to dodge the issue and buy a few more days, in the hope things will get better or something else will blow up to distract everyone's attention. I think he's playing the same game here. Referring to the enquiry buys him a few days/weeks and he probably hopes by then people will have forgotten about it. Especially if around the same time he delivers some good news like a lifting of restrictions or a VAT cut on energy bills.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The inquiry is Sue Gray is not independent in any sense of the word. She has been put in the task of investigating her boss (Simon Case) and his boss (Boris Johnson).

Are you therefore aware of how Sue Gray is regarded from the involvements she has been party to in similar involvements in the past?

 

[Eyersey468]

Are you therefore aware of how Sue Gray is regarded from the involvements she has been party to in similar involvements in the past?

Sorry would you explain what you mean by this as I don't follow?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Sorry would you explain what you mean by this as I don't follow?

It was the "not independent" sentiment expressed by the website member in the posting that I responded to. There had been some media discussion on her personability to conduct a fair enquiry where I was surprised to see how highly she is in fact respected by not just the usual political party, with much experience that she can bring into this enquiry.

 

[96tommy]

Are you therefore aware of how Sue Gray is regarded from the involvements she has been party to in similar involvements in the past?

She is investigating two of her bosses. This should be a police investigation (we are talking about laws being broken). She's a serving permanent secretary. She's also known to have told staff in the past on how to delete compromising emails so they won't be found..... if she does find Boris has broken any ministerial code as we've seen with the Owen Patterson debacle, she'd probably get the sack and Boris would just rub it off.

I'm sorry Boris Johnson is totally indefensible here. At a time when loved ones could not see each other, many died without their loved ones having a chance to say goodbye, having a garden party (and no matter how much spin this corrupt Governement put on it, about it being an extension to the office etc, the email is clear for all to see, it was clearly a party) in your home is reckless.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

She is investigating two of her bosses. This should be a police investigation (we are talking about laws being broken). She's a serving permanent secretary. She's also known to have told staff in the past on how to delete compromising emails so they won't be found..... if she does find Boris has broken any ministerial code as we've seen with the Owen Patterson debacle, she'd probably get the sack and Boris would just rub it off.

I'm sorry Boris Johnson is totally indefensible here. At a time when loved ones could not see each other, many died without their loved ones having a chance to say goodbye, having a garden party (and no matter how much spin this corrupt Governement put on it, about it being an extension to the office etc, the email is clear for all to see, it was clearly a party) in your home is reckless.

I made an earlier posting that made mention of the legal view of the actual homeowner as an attendee at an event held the home property of the homeowner and still need clarification of the law that governs that particular matter. I confess to being unsure of any previous legal rulings that had been made on such a matter where a precedent had been found.

You make reference to a "garden party" in your posting. May I enquire to which particular event you refer to and the date, please.

 

[96tommy]

I made an earlier posting that made mention of the legal view of the actual homeowner as an attendee at an event held the home property of the homeowner and still need clarification of the law that governs that particular matter. I confess to being unsure of any previous legal rulings that had been made on such a matter where a precedent had been found.

You make reference to a "garden party" in your posting. May I enquire to which particular event you refer to and the date, please.

Undoubtedly Boris will find some small print on the law which will mean he wasn't guilty....

May 20th 2020, the one no matter how much spin the tories may put on it was a garden party.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Undoubtedly Boris will find some small print on the law which will mean he wasn't guilty....

May 20th 2020, the one no matter how much spin the tories may put on it was a garden party.

Would you feel confident enough to stand up in court as a member of the prosecution team to back up your personal understanding of the event being addressed as a "garden party" in any invitations that had been made to the event in question?

Can I remind you to check who actually sent out the invitations to the said event.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Would you feel confident enough to stand up in court as a member of the prosecution team to back up your personal understanding of the event being addressed as a "garden party" in any invitations that had been made to the event in question?

Can I remind you to check who actually sent out the invitations to the said event.

I think "socially distanced drinks in the no. 10 garden" would be sufficient, don't you?

 

[96tommy]

Would you feel confident enough to stand up in court as a member of the prosecution team to back up your personal understanding of the event being addressed as a "garden party" in any invitations that had been made to the event in question?

Can I remind you to check who actually sent out the invitations to the said event.

I don't know what's so hard to see, it's clear cut. The invitation said let's go outside and make the most of the weather and bring your own booze/bottle. If you are trying to imply its a work meeting then BYOB instantly rules that out (and if drinking is taking place during meetings in Parliament that's a separate issue).

 

[Peter Mugridge]

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

Not on matters of the law, no. Well, not legally anyway... unless they've slipped a clause secretly into some bill or another that got enacted.

 

[Eyersey468]

It was the "not independent" sentiment expressed by the website member in the posting that I responded to. There had been some media discussion on her personability to conduct a fair enquiry where I was surprised to see how highly she is in fact respected by not just the usual political party, with much experience that she can bring into this enquiry.

Thank you for the clarification, I apologise for my ignorance.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't know what's so hard to see, it's clear cut. The invitation said let's go outside and make the most of the weather and bring your own booze/bottle. If you are trying to imply its a work meeting then BYOB instantly rules that out (and if drinking is taking place during meetings in Parliament that's a separate issue).

Why then do so many people try to give the impression that it was Johnson who sent out the invitations, when it was known that it was a civil servant who issued the invitation...

 

[Eyersey468]

Why then do so many people try to give the impression that it was Johnson who sent out the invitations, when it was known that it was a civil servant who issued the invitation...

While Johnson personally didn't send out the invites I find it hard to believe that he didn't know they had been sent out or sanction them

 

[SuspectUsual]

Why then do so many people try to give the impression that it was Johnson who sent out the invitations, when it was known that it was a civil servant who issued the invitation...

Because its sent from his Principal Private Secretary and says "we thought", rather than "I thought"

Nevertheless, it'll be the PPS who goes, in the best "deputy heads will roll" tradition

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

While Johnson personally didn't send out the invites I find it hard to believe that he didn't know they had been sent out or sanction them

Sounds like we are discussing Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey...

 

[island]

There is this one
https://goodlawproject.org/update/high-court-vip-lane-ppe-unlawful/

Despite the GLP's best efforts to put a positive spin on it, this is hardly a win. The outcome was that they got a declaration that the "VIP fast lane" was operated in breach of public procurement law, but the judge said that it was very likely the contracts would have been awarded anyway and the firms' offers justified priority treatment on the merits.

 

[Eyersey468]

Sounds like we are discussing Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey...

Yeah it does doesn't it

 

[brad465]

Sounds like we are discussing Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey...

Part of me wonders if most the current lot's behaviour is for the purpose of writing new scripts for Yes Minister/Prime Minister.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think "socially distanced drinks in the no. 10 garden" would be sufficient, don't you?

That sounds a totally different type of event than the "garden party" so often referred to in many instances. Makes you wonder if any of these people have ever attended a properly constituted garden party.

 

[greyman42]

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 agree. Where i live we have a private communal garden and residents, including me, used to gather regularly on nice days for a BYOB session. So i have no problem with them doing the same thing at number 10.

== 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

The "look them in the eye" campaign was ridiculous and i find it hard to believe that anyone took it seriously.

 

[Eyersey468]

I agree. Where i live we have a private communal garden and residents, including me, used to gather regularly on nice days for a BYOB session. So i have no problem with them doing the same thing at number 10.

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


The "look them in the eye" campaign was ridiculous and i find it hard to believe that anyone took it seriously.

To me the look them in the eye campaign was disgusting, whoever sanctioned it should be ashamed of themselves

 

[Dent]

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.

They were the ones to impose the rules, and lecture others about the same rules. I don't think the breaking of the rules is the real issue - the rules were unreasonable - the real issue is the hypocrisy.

 

[nw1]

They were the ones to impose the rules, and lecture others about the same rules. I don't think the breaking of the rules is the real issue - the rules were unreasonable - the real issue is the hypocrisy.

This.

 

[Bayum]

To me the look them in the eye campaign was disgusting, whoever sanctioned it should be ashamed of themselves

Tough times call for tough measures. Short sharp shock.

 

[greyman42]

Tough times call for tough measures. Short sharp shock.

Well it never shocked me and i took no notice of it.

 

[bramling]

She is investigating two of her bosses. This should be a police investigation (we are talking about laws being broken). She's a serving permanent secretary. She's also known to have told staff in the past on how to delete compromising emails so they won't be found..... if she does find Boris has broken any ministerial code as we've seen with the Owen Patterson debacle, she'd probably get the sack and Boris would just rub it off.

I'm sorry Boris Johnson is totally indefensible here. At a time when loved ones could not see each other, many died without their loved ones having a chance to say goodbye, having a garden party (and no matter how much spin this corrupt Governement put on it, about it being an extension to the office etc, the email is clear for all to see, it was clearly a party) in your home is reckless.

This is my view. It may well turn out to be the case that the inquiry manages to make out that things were, just about, compliant. But it will prove pretty impossible to dispel the fact that Johnson seems to have misled parliament by claiming to have no knowledge of a gathering where it later turned out he was, in fact, present. The apology was a hollow "I'm sorry if you feel that way" type of apology, not a sincere one. Just today I've had the expected stock response from my MP regarding the whole thing, which essentially read "wait for the inquiry, sorry if you're unhappy".

Someone will no doubt find themselves under the bus, like Stratton found herself, but the damage is done, and ultimately this affair *will* finish him, either directly or indirectly. The polls are telling their own story, and eventually the pack of cards is going to tumble.

I'm also sick of people defending it, the whole thing is extremely hurtful to those who have lost people through Covid and complied with restrictions at the time because they thought it was the right thing to do.