advertisement


A thread to catalogue the eloquence, dignity, diplomacy and wisdom of Boris Johnson III

Status
Not open for further replies.
notaclue said:
He's a very well-practiced liar. Very good at it. As shameless as Trump. But a lot more polished thanks to his upbringing.
Click to expand...

Lying is Johnson’s Tory Party’s default state as it is Trump’s GOP. They will do so gleefully and will only ever apologise when the only alternative is to act with honour or integrity, which they will obviously never do. No apology is sincere, it is purely a means to keep the criminal enterprise on the road for another day. This is what alt-right politics looks like. Every last one of them owns it outright. If your local MP is debasing himself on TV defending it he is 100% to blame for it.
 
Given the timing, this seems to fit better in this thread than the GLP one:

The Good Law Project said:
The Metropolitan Police investigated the various gatherings - we use a neutral expression - around 10 Downing Street during the pandemic lockdown by sending questionnaires to suspected attendees.

Our interest is in three such gatherings:

  1. On 13 November 2020, a gathering in No. 10 on the departure of a special adviser (understood to be the former Downing Street Director of Communications)
  2. On 17 December 2020, a gathering in the Cabinet Office on the departure of a senior Cabinet Office official (understood to be a defence advisor)
  3. On 14 January 2021, a gathering at No. 10 on the departure of two No. 10 private secretaries.
Together, these are known as the “Three Gatherings”.

It is reported that the Prime Minister did not receive questionnaires in respect of the Three Gatherings despite evidence that he attended them. Other attendees did receive questionnaires. We do not understand the decision to investigate some attendees but not the Prime Minister.

Attendees at the Three Gatherings who received questionnaires were fined for attending them. We do not understand the decision to fine some attendees but not the Prime Minister. As we understand the law, if a gathering was prohibited it follows that all who participated in it committed an offence.

We can see no basis for holding junior civil servants to a higher standard than the Prime Minister. And that is why we - former senior police officer Lord Brian Paddick and Good Law Project - have taken the first formal step in further judicial review proceedings against the Metropolitan Police.

We invite the Met to confirm it will rectify its failures to investigate the Prime Minister’s participation in the Three Gatherings, or provide us with its reasons so we can assess the lawfulness of its refusal. Unless it does, and we have given it 14 days to comply, we will begin further judicial review proceedings.

Lord Paddick: “If the Met is to avoid further deterioration in public trust and confidence, they must explain why they failed to even question the Prime Minister about his attendance at these events. We are simply asking the Met to either explain or investigate further, and if necessary we will ask the Courts to force the Met to do so.”

It was only after Good Law Project began judicial review proceedings in January that the Met agreed to investigate at all. And we will not hesitate to commence further proceedings to ensure it investigates them properly.

For the rule of law to operate it must operate fairly, without favour to the powerful. We will do what we can to ensure it does.

Thank you,

Jo Maugham - Good Law Project
Click to expand...
Seems this and perhaps the standards cttee's report are the only hopes for some kind of accountability left.
 
Tony L said:
Lying is Johnson’s Tory Party’s default state as it is Trump’s GOP. They will do so gleefully and will only ever apologise when the only alternative is to act with honour or integrity, which they will obviously never do. No apology is sincere, it is purely a means to keep the criminal enterprise on the road for another day. This is what alt-right politics looks like. Every last one of them owns it outright. If your local MP is debasing himself on TV defending it he is 100% to blame for it.
Click to expand...

Thatcher was much the same. Belgrano sinking, pit closure plan, secret policing manual etc etc. The media did a much better job of holding politicians to account back in those days.
 
I suspect, in the minds of No.10 and Johnson's staff, they'd argue that they spent the day working together, so there was no harm in socialising together in the same place, after work. There is some logic to that, but not enough, and anyway logic really isn't the point.

Socialising extended the period of contact, and was likely to make contact physically closer than working across a desk with, one supposes, at least some notional distancing and masking requirements. So proximity, plus time, must increase the likelihood of transmission. Not to mention the increased risk due to the inevitable visitors to No.10 from outside the staff, who could bring Covid in even if staff were clear. And if they did, then any staffers who caught it from them would be more likely to pass it around, the longer and closer they spent with their colleagues. That's why the rest of the country was reducing contact, and minimising the actual time spent working alongside colleagues when you couldn't avoid working in the same location together.

But logic isn't the point. Even ignoring the increased risk factors which undermine the logic, above, there's the clear messaging that the rest of the country was following, which was being roundly ignored in the seat of government. One rule for us, and one for them. If you can't sit by the bedside of a dying relative or friend, and you can't attend their funeral, you sure as **** can't attend a leaving do, still less casual after work drinks.

Bastards. All of them. A plague on them all.
 
Seeker_UK said:
Are you including the staff in "them"?
Click to expand...
To some extent I am, yes. To the extent that they could have declined, or could have called it out. If they couldn't reasonably have done either (due, perhaps, to office culture, bullying, or just being too junior to risk it) then no, not including them. But the seniors who knew better, who laughed and joked about 'covid secure bars' or who disregarded emailed reservations, then yes, them too.
 
Nick_G said:
I know not everyone here is a fan of Alastair Campbell but he hits the nail on the head here regarding Johnson in this piece with Kay Burley on Sky News:

Partygate: Tory MPs are 'undermining our democracy' - Alastair Campbell - YouTube

This is where Brexit has taken us.
Click to expand...
You don’t have to have a vendetta against Campbell to find this a bit jarring. Here we have a case that turns on evasion, dishonesty, press corruption, intimidation of civil servants, the refusal of public figures to take responsibility for the above and the depressing lack of consequences for having your actions condemned in an official report. If I were Campbell I’d be keeping my head well down and the fact that he doesn’t have to is a pretty big clue as to how we got here. And that’s before we get to the brass neck required to pontificate about Johnson, a man he helped install in Downing Street by waging war on the opposition.

Hard to know where to direct your spleen, really: at the Bullingdon twats using cleaners to revel in their own impunity, or the people who did everything they could to put them there and are now experiencing buyer’s remorse. Really depressing spectacle all round.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I suspect, in the minds of No.10 and Johnson's staff, they'd argue that they spent the day working together, so there was no harm in socialising together in the same place, after work. There is some logic to that, but not enough, and anyway logic really isn't the point.

Socialising extended the period of contact, and was likely to make contact physically closer than working across a desk with, one supposes, at least some notional distancing and masking requirements. So proximity, plus time, must increase the likelihood of transmission. Not to mention the increased risk due to the inevitable visitors to No.10 from outside the staff, who could bring Covid in even if staff were clear. And if they did, then any staffers who caught it from them would be more likely to pass it around, the longer and closer they spent with their colleagues. That's why the rest of the country was reducing contact, and minimising the actual time spent working alongside colleagues when you couldn't avoid working in the same location together.
Click to expand...


There is something to think about here. There were lots of parties at No. 10. And No. 10 carried on operating throughout the epidemic. The PM's office wasn't forced into a near standstill because so many people were isolating, at least as far as I know.

I guess they knew -- they have access to top drawer scientists -- that the increased risk factor of parties with work colleagues was negligible. Why didn't they tell us?!
 
Seanm said:
You don’t have to have a vendetta against Campbell to find this a bit jarring. Here we have a case that turns on evasion, dishonesty, press corruption, intimidation of civil servants, the refusal of public figures to take responsibility for the above and the depressing lack of consequences for having your actions condemned in an official report. If I were Campbell I’d be keeping my head well down and the fact that he doesn’t have to is a pretty big clue as to how we got here. And that’s before we get to the brass neck required to pontificate about Johnson, a man he helped install in Downing Street by waging war on the opposition.

Hard to know where to direct your spleen, really: at the Bullingdon twats using cleaners to revel in their own impunity, or the people who did everything they could to put them there and are now experiencing buyer’s remorse. Really depressing spectacle all round.
Click to expand...

I'd direct your spleen at Labour. They've been MIA in opposing the slide towards authoritarianism, (Mhairi Black's speech in the HOC was superb, and it's exactly what the opposition here should be doing) so any harsh criticism of Johnson is welcome as far as I'm concerned.
 
mandryka said:
There is something to think about here. There were lots of parties at No. 10. And No. 10 carried on operating throughout the epidemic. The PM's office wasn't forced into a near standstill because so many people were isolating, at least as far as I know.

I guess they knew -- they have access to top drawer scientists -- that the increased risk factor of parties with work colleagues was negligible. Why didn't they tell us?!
Click to expand...

3euxk7.jpg


Sorry, no, there's nothing else to "think about". Policy and law was set by the Government for everyone to follow without exception. Many of my colleagues went into work during lockdown because they had to but, they complied with the law and went home as soon as they didn't need to be there. They did that because it was (a) the law, (b) keeping the business going by minimising outbreaks and (c) the right thing to do.

Remember this ad?
38360716-9177109-image-m-22_1611337325320.jpg


Well, some of the same people who signed that have, today, been found by Sue Gray to have, at the very least, bent the rules. Excuses like "Yeah, well, but I made a high confidence risk assessment based on top-drawer science that only I have access to, that hanging one on at an after work social was unlikely to increase transmission", wouldn't have stopped anyone getting an FPN.

Never mind the legality, though. There is a lot of distrust between the population and Government and on eof the oft-repeated accusations is "one rule for them and one for us". The findings of today's report, an issue that a large part of the public have a definite position on (moreso than other issues) will just reinforce that view in some.
 
Yes, there is something to think about, @Seeker_UK. There are two things which were wrong, not one

1. They broke the rules in Number 10.

and, I'm suggesting

2. They kept rules in place knowing that they were were too stringent, too harsh, not very effective.
 
mandryka said:
2. They kept rules in place knowing that they were were too stringent, too harsh, not very effective.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. More likely the mentality that it won't affect them, something a lot of people thought until they actually caught it.
 
During the entire two year period, Scottish Government stuck scrupulously to the regulations. The civil service and advisers worked remotely from home, even those working to the First Minister and ministers, with only a handful of people meeting face to face at any one time. There were no leaving do’s, no parties, no Christmas drinks and nibbles.

Had there been the slightest infringement, the British right wing press and the Tory Party were waiting to pounce. They never got the opportunity.
 
mandryka said:
Maybe.
Click to expand...

The only risk they assessed, according to the report, was of being caught.

"Drinks this eve is a lovely idea so I've shared with the E & V team who are in the office. Just to flag that the press conference will probably be finishing around that time, so helpful if people can be mindful of that as speakers and cameras are leaving, not walking around waving bottles of wine etc".

(Page 11 of https://assets.publishing.service.g...RMANENT_SECRETARY_INTO_ALLEGED_GATHERINGS.pdf, for ref)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top