UK politics general discussion

[Alsty]

If you were a junior member who received a fine, knowing senior people including the Prime Minister did not, you might just leak every photo of the event in your possession... I know I would. There could be some interesting photos emerging over the coming weeks.

 

[Matt N]

I work in the NHS, we are still not allowed to meet face to face outside of the clinical area. A colleague of mine is retiring after 40 years in the service and she is getting a 20min MS Teams meeting on Thursday.

And people see this event in lockdown as ok?

Baffling!

My point was more; we don’t know his circumstances. We don’t yet know why he was there, how long he was there for etc, if we’re talking about the PM specifically.

I’ll admit that it is quite an unexpected conclusion for the PM not to receive a fine given that others in the room did, at first glance, but I have full faith in the Met Police to have reached the correct conclusion. They will have accessed all kinds of evidence that we as civilians will not have accessed; the investigation took months, so they clearly looked at a lot of evidence and made a very reasoned judgement.

In some instances, he has been found to have broken the law in some way or another, which I won’t deny. He’s already been fined for the birthday party, so a breach was clearly found there. But I trust that the police probably knows something we don’t here, and that will ultimately have led them the way it has.

And even if he has broken the rules on occasions other than the birthday party (which he’s already been fined for); what can we do about it?

 

[Alsty]

Aside from the legal issues, on 8 December 2021, Labour MP Catherine West asked Boris Johnson in the Commons if a party had taken place in Downing Street on 13 November 2020. He replied: "No, but I'm sure whatever happened the guidance was followed and all the rules were followed at all times."

These photos show him at that party on 13th November. If that's not misleading Parliament then I don't know what is.

 

[Matt N]

On 8 December 2021, Labour MP Catherine West asked Boris Johnson in the Commons if a party had taken place in Downing Street on 13 November 2020.
He replied: "No, but I'm sure whatever happened the guidance was followed and all the rules were followed at all times."

These photos show him at that party on 13th November. If that's not misleading Parliament then I don't know what is.

I’ll be interested to see how (or even if) he gets out of that one, as that is rather damning evidence against him, I’ll admit.

However, I’ve seen people argue that the “No” was to “can the PM tell us whether there was a party?” rather than “was there a party?”, which these arguers suggest would put him in the clear.

I’ll admit I’m surprised at the degree of pedantry that can be used to influence the conclusion; slight differences in wording used can seemingly make all the difference.

 

[Craig]

My point was more; we don’t know his circumstances. We don’t yet know why he was there, how long he was there for etc, if we’re talking about the PM specifically.

I’ll admit that it is quite an unexpected conclusion for the PM not to receive a fine given that others in the room did, at first glance, but I have full faith in the Met Police to have reached the correct conclusion. They will have accessed all kinds of evidence that we as civilians will not have accessed; the investigation took months, so they clearly looked at a lot of evidence and made a very reasoned judgement.

In some instances, he has been found to have broken the law in some way or another, which I won’t deny. He’s already been fined for the birthday party, so a breach was clearly found there. But I trust that the police probably knows something we don’t here, and that will ultimately have led them the way it has.

And even if he has broken the rules on occasions other than the birthday party (which he’s already been fined for); what can we do about it?

The issue is that the Sue Gray report will not give you these answers, it’s completely separate to the Met’s investigation. So to question it now, when the Met’s investigation is complete is the right thing to do.

To be frank, I have zero faith in the Met as their process to investigate this has been a complete and utter shambles. They did not want to investigate this mess in the first place, and the lack of explanation about how they’ve come to the conclusions and their unwillingness to do so makes me question them even more.

As to what we can do about it, in short don’t back down when it’s becoming ever clearer that senior government figures are getting away with lying and trying to bluster their way out of accountability for blatant breaches of the rules they’ve set.

 

[Matt N]

In an interesting development, it is being suggested that the meeting between Boris Johnson and Sue Gray was an attempt by Boris Johnson to stop her from publishing the full report: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-suggested-sue-gray-27047209

I wonder if the report is not overly complimentary of Boris/the government, or whether the PM simply feels there’s no benefit in publishing it.

 

[Funcone]

Here's another question for people to ask themselves. The MET say they spent £460,000 investigating the Downing Street parties. Do we feel that we've had £460,000 worth of sleuthing? If you'd given Sherlock Homes £460,000, is this what he'd have come up with?

 

[Dave]

In an interesting development, it is being suggested that the meeting between Boris Johnson and Sue Gray was an attempt by Boris Johnson to stop her from publishing the full report: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-suggested-sue-gray-27047209

I wonder if the report is not overly complimentary of Boris/the government, or whether the PM simply feels there’s no benefit in publishing it.

Can I suggest you read 1984 and Animal Farm as soon as possible.

Here's another question for people to ask themselves. The MET say they spent £460,000 investigating the Downing Street parties. Do we feel that we've had £460,000 worth of sleuthing? If you'd given Sherlock Homes £460,000, is this what he'd have come up with?

I mean he didn’t exist so not a lot more I would imagine but no I don’t think we got value for money there.

 

[pluk]

The main issue, which I’ll repeat again is that others in that room have been fined for participating in a gathering, so therefore the Met have deemed it to be illegal. For that reason, everyone there should have been fined.

I'm not saying it is right that he wasn't fined, but that simply isn't how the law works. Each outcome is on its own merit and evidence.

Do we even know if that photo was seen by the police? They can only use evidence they actually have or know exists.

 

[Dave]

I'm not saying it is right that he wasn't fined, but that simply isn't how the law works. Each outcome is on its own merit and evidence.

Do we even know if that photo was seen by the police? They can only use evidence they actually have or know exists.

No one is questioning how the law works, they are asking if it has been applied correctly and fairly by the police.

This picture and the fact others at that gathering have been fined brings enough doubt to question that, it doesn’t prove it was applied incorrectly but it adds reasonable doubt.

There is a reason in normal circumstances the investigative body and the judicial body are separate, fixed penalty notices are normally reserved for matters where there is little question about the incident (for instance this certified speed camera caught you doing 40mph in a 30mph zone and you don’t challenge you are driving). The issue here is they are being applied where subtleties are involved and that is where it’s better to have an independent judgement, though I do understand why the gov chose fixed penalty as the courts would be able to cope with the demand.

 

[pluk]

No one is questioning how the law works

I was responding specifically to this...

others in that room have been fined for participating in a gathering, so therefore the Met have deemed it to be illegal. For that reason, everyone there should have been fined.

...which is not how the law works.

 

[Craig]

I was responding specifically to this...

...which is not how the law works.

And my full post was this:

The main issue, which I’ll repeat again is that others in that room have been fined for participating in a gathering, so therefore the Met have deemed it to be illegal. For that reason, everyone there should have been fined. That photo of him, raising a glass shows his participation in that gathering, so questions should be asked as to why he was not fined.

To clarify, I'm also saying the above based on the photo which has been released. Based on the below tweet by Paul Brand, who broke the story yesterday, photos similar to this were with Sue Gray and therefore were passed to The Met:



If reports are to be believed that Johnson wasn't even sent a questionnaire related to this event, and if the full report does indeed show photos similar to the ones from yesterday, I find it very hard to believe that the investigation was carried out in a proper manner. The silence regarding the whole thing from The Met is a real issue, as just like their reluctance to investigate in the first place, this isn't going to go away.

 

[Vik]

The problem is, it’s hard to fully judge without any additional context.

Boris could have just briefly popped in for a quick chat. Boris could have been working in the room next door. Boris could have been working in that same room, for all we know (in which case, it could technically be considered a “work event” like he describes), and just taken a quick break. Without seeing the evidence that the Met Police can see, we simply don’t know.

I won’t deny that the picture doesn’t paint him in a very law-abiding light at first glance, but I think we should wait for the Gray report and hear what that has to say about this particular event before we get out our pitchforks and flaming torches, as it might well reveal some new information as to why the police did not fine him, and why Boris Johnson’s presence at the event was not considered illegal.

Maybe he ‘Ambushed by Wine’?

How anyone can defend this man is baffling!

 

[Dave]

Maybe he ‘Ambushed by Wine’?

How anyone can defend this man is baffling!

To be fair I’m regularly ambushed by wine….

 

[Dave]

Partygate: Insiders tell of packed No 10 lockdown parties

Partygate: Insiders tell of packed No 10 lockdown parties

Staff describe bins overflowing with bottles, people sitting on each other's laps and colleagues sleeping in the office.

www.bbc.co.uk

Doesn’t paint a particularly flattering picture.

Looking forward to the mental gymnastics the Johnson supporters will pull for this one.

 

[Alsty]

I'm not saying it is right that he wasn't fined, but that simply isn't how the law works. Each outcome is on its own merit and evidence.

Allow me to quote Adam Wagner, a human rights barrister.

 

[Funcone]

I'm not a big supporter of Boris Johnson, but I am going to defend him slightly here. Maybe he didn't think he was at any parties because he got so drunk he couldn't remember them.

 

[Matt N]

Partygate: Insiders tell of packed No 10 lockdown parties

Partygate: Insiders tell of packed No 10 lockdown parties

Staff describe bins overflowing with bottles, people sitting on each other's laps and colleagues sleeping in the office.

www.bbc.co.uk

Doesn’t paint a particularly flattering picture.

Looking forward to the mental gymnastics the Johnson supporters will pull for this one.

Yikes… I’ll digress that doesn’t sound good. If those reports are true, then it doesn’t sound like social distancing was even attempted.

If they had initially tried to stay 2m away, but perhaps slipped a little and got a bit closer as the night went on, then you could pass that off as a valid attempt to socially distance, but sitting on laps makes it sound as though distancing wasn’t thought of. Each to their own, I suppose, but I wouldn’t sit on someone’s lap even at a pre-COVID party, let alone at a party in COVID

I guess they could have tried to distance to begin with, and then the alcohol could have taken over and made them let their guard down a bit.

 

[Craig]

Yikes… I’ll digress that doesn’t sound good. If those reports are true, then it doesn’t sound like social distancing was even attempted.

If they had initially tried to stay 2m away, but perhaps slipped a little and got a bit closer as the night went on, then you could pass that off as a valid attempt to socially distance, but sitting on laps makes it sound as though distancing wasn’t thought of. Each to their own, I suppose, but I wouldn’t sit on someone’s lap even at a pre-COVID party, let alone at a party in COVID

I guess they could have tried to distance to begin with, and then the alcohol could have taken over and made them let their guard down a bit.

If your take from that story is that they weren't social distancing, then please - give it another read. It doesn't matter what happened as the night went on, the fact is that drinking and partying is not remotely, never-mind reasonably necessary for work purposes.

Social distancing was always guidance - there was no law specifying you had to be 2m apart. What was law at the time in 2020 though was that it was illegal to participate in a gathering if it was not reasonably necessary for work. "Wine Time Fridays", leaving drinks going on until people end up staying overnight and loudly dancing around until the point that they're kicked out is not by any stretch of the imagination acceptable in most workplaces in normal times, never mind during the restrictions at the time. There is not a single thing that can be deemed "reasonably necessary for work" in those accounts.

Let's not forget when all this was going on, only two weeks before it was announced that non essential shops had to close and we could only meet outdoors with one other person for exercise and recreation. At the time all this was going on people were being forced to move off park benches as it was not deemed to be exercise. Those who had to attend work were having their breaks either in rooms on their own, with screens up or facing away from their colleagues. If true, and I don't see why it wouldn't be as Panorama are now extremely careful with their editorial standards in sourcing information, I don't see anyone can even remotely defend their behaviour now is beyond me.

 

[Matt N]

If your take from that story is that they weren't social distancing, then please - give it another read.

Social distancing was always guidance. There was no law specifying you had to be 2m apart. What was law at the time in 2020 though was that it was illegal to participate in a gathering if it was not reasonably necessary for work. "Wine Time Fridays", leaving drinks going on until people end up staying overnight and loudly dancing around until the point that they're kicked out are not by any stretch of the imagination acceptable in most workplaces in normal times, never mind during a national lockdown. There is not a single thing that can be deemed "reasonably necessary for work" in those accounts.

I’ve got to say, I never knew social distancing was guidance. I always thought it was law.

I’ll admit the drinks do seem like a slightly strange thing to do in a professional work environment. Surely if they wanted a party, they’d have gone elsewhere? Or perhaps they could have had a Zoom/MS Teams party from the comfort of their own homes?

I’ll be intrigued to hear Boris’ defence for these recent emergences, though… while I’m willing to hear what he has to say before making a full judgement, they don’t paint him in an overly law-abiding light.