No 10 rule breaking gatherings during 2020.

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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.

This particular website has gradually built up a reputation for politically inspired polls on threads at times of General Elections, referendums, et al, which invariably bear little resemblance to the actual result.

 

[Cowley]

This particular website has gradually built up a reputation for politically inspired polls on threads at times of General Elections, referendums, et al, which invariably bear little resemblance to the actual result.

That certainly has happened over years but is probably on for this thread…

When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

We've had threads "burying" Labour and the LibDems, but when will the Conservative demise be? Which of the icebergs over the horizon will be the one to sink PM Johnson? They've just lost two by-elections in a row where they were favourites to win - the huge attention paid to Hartlepool meant we...

www.railforums.co.uk

I’ve actually changed the title of this thread (upon request) now because we’re obviously not just discussing Christmas party’s anymore.

 

[Mainline421]

Shouldn't the title also reflect that there never was a lockdown during December 2020?

 

[Cowley]

Shouldn't the title also reflect that there never was a lockdown during December 2020?

Done!

 

[brad465]

It's now been revealed that senior No.10 staff had to intervene in the first half of 2021 to stop more parties from happening, with the May 20th 2020 gathering seen as "lowering the bar" for future events. As well as this revelation, the May 20th gathering had high resistance it turns out among some staff who unsuccessfully tried to stop it going ahead:

No 10 staff intervened to stop Downing Street events

One former insider tells the BBC drinks on 20 May "lowered the bar" for later events to take place.

www.bbc.co.uk

Senior Downing Street political staff had to intervene during the first half of 2021 to prevent events at No 10 - such as leaving parties - going ahead, sources have told the BBC.
The proposed events - suggested by staff, not politicians - would have taken place during the roadmap out of lockdown, which saw restrictions gradually lifted.
Indoor hospitality in England was banned until 17 May 2021 and outdoor mixing - in groups of six - wasn't permitted until 29 March 2021.
The prime minister is coming under pressure, following allegations he attended a lockdown drinks in the Downing Street garden on 20 May 2020.
On Monday, ITV published an email from the prime minister's principal private secretary, Martin Reynolds, inviting around 100 staff to the "socially distanced drinks".

Witnesses have told the BBC Boris Johnson and his wife had been among about 30 people at the event.
Mr Johnson has not denied he was at the party, instead pointing to an ongoing investigation into gatherings held in Downing Street.
Former No 10 insiders say those "socially distanced drinks" set a precedent: if a senior civil servant such as Mr Reynolds could give approval to this event, it was unsurprising that more junior staff felt it was acceptable to hold a Christmas party later that year.
One of them said the 20 May drinks had "lowered the bar" for future events.
Last Friday, the former senior Downing Street aide Dominic Cummings said he had made it clear in writing that the 20 May event should not go ahead.
But it has now become apparent he was not a lone voice.
A fellow adviser told the BBC that they were "furious" that the drinks took place.
And another senior member of the political staff at No 10 also tried unsuccessfully to have the event called off.
A former senior staff member said there had been detailed discussions about meetings which took place outdoors to ensure regulations were observed, but - in their opinion - there had been "no legal basis" for the "bring your own bottle" event on 20 May 2020.
A long-standing Conservative MP predicted that Sue Gray, the civil servant who is conducting the internal inquiry, would "let the PM off on a technicality" - that Downing Street was both a household and a place of work.
However, some of those who worked at No 10 at the time maintain that no such loophole would have been credible.
The latest revelations have resulted in a high degree of jeopardy for Boris Johnson.
One former member of his staff questioned whether the 20 May event could have gone ahead without his approval, given the resistance to it from key political staff.
A Conservative MP who is well placed to gauge backbench opinion told the BBC that the mood was now hardening against the prime minister.
He suggested that Mr Johnson's behaviour was "impugning the reputations of Conservative MPs".

 

[Ian1971]

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.


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?

on the COVID stats it works both ways my father in law died after a month in hospital with COVID so isn’t included in deaths of those who tested positive in the last 28 days

As for the party how on earth can you defend the man, he lies consistently. How can he not know that 100 people were invited to a party in his garden, is he that unaware of what is going on around him?

 

[Eyersey468]

on the COVID stats it works both ways my father in law died after a month in hospital with COVID so isn’t included in deaths of those who tested positive in the last 28 days

As for the party how on earth can you defend the man, he lies consistently. How can he not know that 100 people were invited to a party in his garden, is he that unaware of what is going on around him?

He cannot be defended. Even if he wasn't there I find it impossible to believe he didn't know 100 people had been invited.

Regarding the Covid death stats, I would be interested to know whether it is more common to die of Covid within 28 days of a positive test or outside of that. My condolences about your father in law.

 

[brad465]

This is what the Daily Star have to say about all this tomorrow:

Tomorrow's Papers Today - UK Front Pages - Latest Newspaper Headlines

All of UK's Tomorrow's Front Pages ✅ Updated Daily between 7PM - 11pm ✅ The Mail, Express, Times, Guardian and many more Proudly supporting #buyapaper

www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk

 

[ainsworth74]

Safe to say that it's a fairly catastrophic set of headlines on tomorrow's papers. I think basically every single paper leads with it. From large nationals to small locals. All of them.

 

[Gloster]

This morning it was on the front page of just about every one, even The Daily Telegraph. The only exception I noticed was The Sun, but that has its own problems with lockdown parties.

 

[brad465]

This morning it was on the front page of just about every one, even The Daily Telegraph. The only exception I noticed was The Sun, but that has its own problems with lockdown parties.

Tomorrow though it has a very damaging one:

Wednesday's newspaper front pages

Sky News takes a look at the headlines in Wednesday's newspaper front pages on the latest episode of our late-night show, The Wrap.

news.sky.com

 

[Watershed]

This is what the Daily Star have to say about all this tomorrow:

Tomorrow's Papers Today - UK Front Pages - Latest Newspaper Headlines

All of UK's Tomorrow's Front Pages ✅ Updated Daily between 7PM - 11pm ✅ The Mail, Express, Times, Guardian and many more Proudly supporting #buyapaper

www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk

View attachment 108609

"Epistemological? What are you talking about?"
"You told a lie"


Absolute classic. Just goes to show it was a documentary, not a comedy!

 

[bramling]

Safe to say that it's a fairly catastrophic set of headlines on tomorrow's papers. I think basically every single paper leads with it. From large nationals to small locals. All of them.

This is panning out rather as I predicted. A lull over the Christmas period, then flares up again. Reminds me of when the Lib Dems got rid of Mr Kennedy.

The only real issue now is the question of who on earth replaces him.

 

[GusB]

This is panning out rather as I predicted. A lull over the Christmas period, then flares up again. Reminds me of when the Lib Dems got rid of Mr Kennedy.

The only real issue now is the question of who on earth replaces him.

That's what worries me - we all know how little competence there is as far as Johnson is concerned, but who do we realistically want to take up the mantle?

 

[Cowley]

That's what worries me - we all know how little competence there is as far as Johnson is concerned, but who do we realistically want to take up the mantle?

Genuinely worrying isn’t it?

 

[bramling]

That's what worries me - we all know how little competence there is as far as Johnson is concerned, but who do we realistically want to take up the mantle?

Goodness knows. It’s a serious problem.

The Johnson question has somehow got to be resolved though, we can’t have this painful baffoon show running on for much longer, especially as the next couple of years are likely to prove very difficult ones.

 

[island]

I think Boris will brazen it out, like he always does.

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

Very few. When they do "win", I don't think they've had anything other than declaratory relief (a judge stating on the record that such and such an act by the government was illegal, but not implementing any consequences for it).

Whilst I used to support the GLP, including on such matters as challenging overly restrictive regulations under the Public Health Act 1984, it is now merely (mis)using the courts as a venue to conduct political campaigning/embarrass the government. All this will achieve is hastening the day the government reforms judicial review to ban cases like this where the claimant has no realistic standing to pursue the claim.

 

[duncanp]

The one good thing about all of this is that it makes it more likely than not that the Plan B regulations will not be renewed after January 26th.

Boris Johnson cannot stand up a Downing Street press conference with the newly knighted Sir Tweedledum and Sir Tweedledee and exhort us all to keep following the rules, when he has quite clearly broken them himself.

Even if he didn't attend the gathering himself (unlikely) it doesn't look good if you permit an illegal gathering to take place in your own back garden.

So I would expect England to move to Plan A on 26th January, and the government to set out a plan for permanently removing all remaining restrictions by the second anniversary of the lockdown in March.

 

[brad465]

Johnson has admitted in PMQs to attending the party for 25 minutes, including to thank staff present.

 

[bspahh]

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

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

BREAKING: High Court finds Government PPE ‘VIP’ lane for politically connected suppliers ‘unlawful’

Over a year of hard work has paid off today. The High Court has ruled that the Government’s operation of a fast-track VIP lane for awarding lucrative PPE contracts to those with political connections was unlawful.

In a challenge brought by Good Law Project and EveryDoctor to the behind closed door VIP lane worth billions of pounds, the Court found:

“the Claimants have established that operation of the High Priority Lane was in breach of the obligation of equal treatment… the illegality is marked by this judgment.” (§512)

The Judge agreed the VIP lane conferred preferential treatment on bids: it sped up the process, which meant offers were considered sooner in a process where timing was critical, and VIPs’ hands were held through the process. She said:

“offers that were introduced through the Senior Referrers received earlier consideration at the outset of the process. The High Priority Lane Team was better resourced and able to respond to such offers on the same day that they arrived”. (§395)

The Court found the Government allocated offers to the VIP lane on a “flawed basis” (§396) and did not properly prioritise bids:

“there is evidence that opportunities were treated as high priority even where there were no objectively justifiable grounds for expediting the offer.” (§383).

The Court noted that the overwhelming majority by value of the product supplied by Pestfix and Ayanda could not be used in the NHS.

An independent investigation by the BBC has also revealed issues with the product supplied by Clandeboye which were not disclosed to the High Court. Good Law Project believes that the Government misled the Court and is in correspondence with lawyers for the Secretary of State.

The Judge found that, even though Pestfix and Ayanda received unlawful preferential treatment via the VIP lane, they would likely have been awarded contracts anyway. The Judge also refused to allow publication of how much money was wasted by the Government’s failure to carry out technical assurance on the PPE supplied by Pestfix and Ayanda. Good Law Project is considering the wider implications of these aspects of the ruling and next steps.

We first revealed the red carpet-to-riches VIP lane for those with political connections in October 2020. Since then, we have fought to reveal details of those who benefited, and at whose request – while the Government fought to conceal them.

Never again should any Government treat a public health crisis as an opportunity to enrich its associates and donors at public expense.

Thank you for your trust in us, and your continued support of this case over 18 long months. Without you, this simply wouldn’t have been possible.

We also want to express our deep gratitude to our expert legal team on this case: Rook Irwin Sweeney and Jason Coppel QC, Patrick Halliday and Zac Sammour of 11KBW. They have worked tirelessly on this case and we hugely appreciate their efforts.

 

[Typhoon]

Johnson has admitted in PMQs to attending the party for 25 minutes, including to thank staff present.

For him this may be the worst of all worlds. It will look like he is weak, forced into making the statement. It will buy him a little more time with his own backbenchers but to what effect?

As others have said upthread, he could have got this sorted weeks, even months, ago. If it is found that he might have known about others and hasn't mentioned them, he has nowhere to go, it will look like there are a whole string of them that the media will be sniffing out.

At least I won't need to read pages 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 of tomorrows papers,

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

The only thing that surprises me here is that anyone is surprised at what happened. I thought at the time that it was unlikely they were following the rules. I'm fairly sure I expressed that view on this forum but I can't be bothered to trawl through hundreds of posts to check. The good thing is that it makes more restrictions pretty much untenable.

 

[Cdd89]

The statement that I think would have gone down better (and been hard to challenge!) is, in addition to apologising for attending the party, apologising for not having eased outdoor restrictions sooner.

That would have been a good political move to indicate that no direct harm was caused, and would have moved the conversation on to the fact that lockdowns were eased too slowly.

 

[greyman42]

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.

I think that this is the case.

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

So I would expect England to move to Plan A on 26th January, and the government to set out a plan for permanently removing all remaining restrictions by the second anniversary of the lockdown in March.

I don't see any need for any restrictions after 26 January.

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

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.

I don't believe it did. I think they caved in to the media and the hysterical public.

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

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.

I don't believe it did. I think they caved in to the media and the hysterical public.

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.

This hits the nail on the head.

 

[306024]

"Epistemological? What are you talking about?"
"You told a lie"


Absolute classic. Just goes to show it was a documentary, not a comedy!

Here’s the clip from Yes Prime Minister

Priceless

 

[yorksrob]

The statement that I think would have gone down better (and been hard to challenge!) is, in addition to apologising for attending the party, apologising for not having eased outdoor restrictions sooner.

That would have been a good political move to indicate that no direct harm was caused, and would have moved the conversation on to the fact that lockdowns were eased too slowly.

Yes indeed. I would rather this fiasco were used to shine a light on the complete stupidity and pointlessness of the outdoor (in particular) restrictictions, rather than just the Johnson not following the rules narrative.

 

[Typhoon]

‘Bring a bottle’ to a ‘work event’ is a novel idea! Very thin ice indeed.

From Tory MP Roger Gale's twitter feed.

Criticism from Gale is not unexpected but what has surprised me is the tone adopted by other Kent MPs, for instance Helen Grant

I was particularly angry to receive yesterday’s reports of 100 email invitations being sent out for a ‘Bring Your Own Bottle’ event in the garden at Number 10, where the Prime Minister himself has admitted he was in attendance.

I could quote more; doubtless this will be replicated in other parts of the country. I think Johnson has underestimated the anger; and when I see his defenders include the likes of Michael Fabricant an Christopher Chope, I think he needs to start to worry.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

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.

 

[nanstallon]

From Tory MP Roger Gale's twitter feed.

Criticism from Gale is not unexpected but what has surprised me is the tone adopted by other Kent MPs, for instance Helen Grant
I could quote more; doubtless this will be replicated in other parts of the country. I think Johnson has underestimated the anger; and when I see his defenders include the likes of Michael Fabricant an Christopher Chope, I think he needs to start to worry.

With friends like Christopher Chope, who needs enemies?

Such a slap in the face for NHS workers who were putting their lives on the line and for people losing their relatives, and not even allowed to hold their hand as they passed away. Time to resign and salvage some dignity.

 

[SuspectUsual]

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?