Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Boris has been fined - Part 2

988 replies

cakeorwine · 13/04/2022 21:00

Because this is going to go on and on.....
With more fines

Part 1 here

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4528104-boris-has-been-fined-tory-voters-should-he-go

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
SueSaid · 14/04/2022 20:26

'I wondered about this. Are they doing it by date?'

Think so but it seems a bit 🙄 to me and rather counterproductive. Any serious, actual events (out of the workplace socialising) should've been the focus. The impact and reaction would've been huge.

I would predict that after this non event any further revelations will just have people rolling their eyes.

Original poster
cakeorwine · 14/04/2022 20:27

@JaniieJones

'I wondered about this. Are they doing it by date?'

Think so but it seems a bit 🙄 to me and rather counterproductive. Any serious, actual events (out of the workplace socialising) should've been the focus. The impact and reaction would've been huge.

I would predict that after this non event any further revelations will just have people rolling their eyes.

Of course you do....

By election coming up soon.

Sue Gray report.

OP posts:
Blossomtoes · 14/04/2022 20:34

@JaniieJones

'I wondered about this. Are they doing it by date?'

Think so but it seems a bit 🙄 to me and rather counterproductive. Any serious, actual events (out of the workplace socialising) should've been the focus. The impact and reaction would've been huge.

I would predict that after this non event any further revelations will just have people rolling their eyes.

That was predictable. You really don’t understand how angry people are about this.
jgw1 · 14/04/2022 20:37

@JaniieJones

'I wondered about this. Are they doing it by date?'

Think so but it seems a bit 🙄 to me and rather counterproductive. Any serious, actual events (out of the workplace socialising) should've been the focus. The impact and reaction would've been huge.

I would predict that after this non event any further revelations will just have people rolling their eyes.

If it was a non event, why did the Prime Minister and Chancellor waste time going @JaniieJones. I was led to believe they were very important people.
Peregrina · 14/04/2022 20:39

None of this would have been necessary if Johnson had either been able to a) follow his own legislation or b) had addressed allegations quickly & thoroughly in November. Nobody focuses on the DofE party because they moved quickly and didn't misrepresent or mislead (although still shouldn't have happened.)

c) Drafted some clear laws in the first place, without people being confused as to what was law and what was guidance. Additionally, being much more pragmatic - so that it was possible e.g. for a family to visit grandparents, instead of just having to stand outside in the garden. Not having such harsh laws around funerals - I recall one person being fined for moving to comfort his mother.

Notonthestairs · 14/04/2022 20:43

Agree @Peregrina

Fulmine · 14/04/2022 21:01

@JaniieJones

'And Johnson has accepted that he broke the law so I don't know why people are refusing to accept it. '

Because context counts. We can agree a jobsworth in the Met issued an fpn but if other police forces didn't issue fpns for exactly the same situation it makes it all meaningless and absolutely reduces the impact when we know this situation was a non event.

If there was a flat party they should really stop wasting everyone's time and focus on that.

How about spending considerably more than the famous 9 minutes attending his aide's leaving do? According to the Telegraph, that's the next fine. By no stretch of the imagination is that essential for work.
Notonthestairs · 14/04/2022 21:06

And I don't know why I am bothering but "workplace socialising" wasn't permitted under Johnson's legislation in June 2020.

Indoor gatherings were banned. Outside 6 people, 2 metres apart. Workplace meetings should be minimised and limited to two people unless "reasonably necessary".

I dont care if your neighbours aunts cousin had a French fancy in a staff room - IF that happened they didn't review legislation, vote on it or tell us to #belikeJosephine. Thirty people having M&S canapés was never within the law we were threatened with.

Original poster
cakeorwine · 14/04/2022 21:16

Just what did the Covid guidance in Number 10 look like?
Do you think they tried their best to socially distance and reduce the risk of transmission in Number 10 - with meetings etc?

I wonder if we will ever get to see the Number 10 guidelines?

OP posts:
Notonthestairs · 14/04/2022 21:38

Well I don't know what the guidance looked like but there were reports during his second period of isolation that he was difficult to handle. They set up a run from the flat to the office so that he'd not meet anyone but he'd wander about. They'd put chairs in doorways to stop him.
The rules didn't apply.

Roussette · 14/04/2022 21:44

The guidance should've been what everyone else was enduring

ilovesooty · 14/04/2022 23:04

@Notonthestairs

Well I don't know what the guidance looked like but there were reports during his second period of isolation that he was difficult to handle. They set up a run from the flat to the office so that he'd not meet anyone but he'd wander about. They'd put chairs in doorways to stop him. The rules didn't apply.
Big Dog wouldn't stay in his kennel apparently.
Original poster
cakeorwine · 14/04/2022 23:13

He has said that all guidance was followed.

So I do wonder what exact guidance he was following?

Did they have fewer face to face meetings?
Did they try to socially distance in the workplace?
Limit numbers in the room?
Reduce the staff who could go to a canteen to get food

OP posts:
NETSRIK · 14/04/2022 23:14

@lightisnotwhite

Hello all! Thanks for the new thread. See that the usual suspects are still banging the support drum for Boris. Wonder how many threads it will take for the drumming to stop?

The original thread asked for Tory supporters opinions.

🙄
Hawkins001 · 14/04/2022 23:36

@Roussette

The guidance should've been what everyone else was enduring
But when you have a country to run, should the rules be revised ?
Notonthestairs · 14/04/2022 23:54

Please elaborate.

Original poster
cakeorwine · 15/04/2022 00:18

But when you have a country to run, should the rules be revised

Sensible guidelines within a work place environment - they had essential work to do - but at the same time, they should have had procedures in place to minimise the risk of transmission.

I would have thought that would be especially important to reduce the risk of transmission in a place where they were running the country as as the time, no one was vaccinated and the chances of serious illness was much higher.

OP posts:
itsgettingweird · 15/04/2022 07:02

@cakeorwine

But when you have a country to run, should the rules be revised

Sensible guidelines within a work place environment - they had essential work to do - but at the same time, they should have had procedures in place to minimise the risk of transmission.

I would have thought that would be especially important to reduce the risk of transmission in a place where they were running the country as as the time, no one was vaccinated and the chances of serious illness was much higher.

Exactly my response to that question.

We were so careful in schools because we were told we needed to provide that keyworker care for others to be able to work - for the country to run. We were terrified of allowing a covid outbreak to happen for fear of stopping keyworker care or other keyworkers to work.

But those who apparently single handedly ran the best international covid response seemed to think that the covid risk didn't apply to them and it actually didn't matter if they all caught it.

Roussette · 15/04/2022 07:03

But when you have a country to run, should the rules be revised ?

Hawkins Do you mean...should the rules be different for those running the country?

If so...should the rules be different for those looking after our health? (NHS)
Should the rules be different for those making sure food chain supplies kept working?
I could go on.
Running the country covers a huge area doesn't it?
NHS, police, essential workers etc
So no......

NETSRIK · 15/04/2022 08:18

Fact is though that the rules aren't different when you have a country to run. I like facts like that.

Fulmine · 15/04/2022 08:18

Unfortunately the virus pays no attention to whether you have a country to run.

ColinRobinsonsFart · 15/04/2022 08:21

I keep seeing this as

'Boris has been fired'

It raises my hopes up... s'not fair

Benjispruce4 · 15/04/2022 08:22

@ColinRobinsonsFart me too even though I know what this thread is!Confused

jgw1 · 15/04/2022 08:47

@cakeorwine

He has said that all guidance was followed.

So I do wonder what exact guidance he was following?

Did they have fewer face to face meetings?
Did they try to socially distance in the workplace?
Limit numbers in the room?
Reduce the staff who could go to a canteen to get food

I think we already know they didn't all wear facemasks within the meeting, was their not a video of a minister (Hancock?) taking his mask off as he stepped through the door?
Cornettoninja · 15/04/2022 09:06

Not related to partygate

Randomly thinking, but I remembered in July 21 ( no lockdown ) the furore over Boris and Sunak not isolating after contact with a positive Sajid Javid claiming that they were part of the trial of testing for a number of days following a contact instead of isolating (a policy which apparently was awful because it cost billions Confused)

news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-a-quarantine-dodge-by-boris-johnson-after-meeting-covid-positive-sajid-javid-would-unleash-a-massive-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do-row-12358112

It’s just another example of them massively misjudging the publics mood and handling it terribly.

Fwiw at the time I thought it was pathetic they were unable to justify, that as prime minister and chancellor, that it’s pretty important for them to work unobstructed if able and being part of this trial would allow them to do that. An inability of their office to anticipate and communicate that strikes me as a basic failing that indicates the presence of incompetence and arrogance. It just never occurred to any of them that communicating with the public and presenting their reasoning would be required so they knee jerk reacted to the popular opinion.

Honestly, they’re just a complete shower and it’s embarrassing that it’s had to come to pressure to get the police involved to prove something we all already knew and still be patronised and treated like children who just don’t understand the wider political landscape and the importance of their personal roles in that.

Arrogance and incompetence reign supreme in Downing Street.

Swipe left for the next trending thread