AIBU to feel gaslighted by the government and BBC?

[Bavarois]

Another photo has appeared, showing the Tories having a 'work meeting' (garden party) on 15th May 2020. The BBC report states 'The 15 May photograph shows a gathering of staff in the Downing Street garden... At that time, gatherings of more than two people were banned in outdoor public places in England. However, because the picture appears to show a private garden, that restriction would not apply. Later on in the pandemic, gatherings were banned in private gardens too.'

We were in LOCKDOWN. We weren't allowed to leave our house for anything other than work, medical supplies, or exercise. Now I'm in Scotland so I might be remembering things slightly differently as our rules were slightly different, so I looked it up. Guardian article from 28th May - 'Johnson said: “We will now allow people to meet in gardens, and other private outdoor spaces'

How can they just lie and lie? And even the BBC?! Shouldn't we be able to trust at least them? It's despicable.

And if they DID work together they couldn’t have walked the dogs either. U less their job was a family dot walking business. Which IIRC weren’t allowed to operate in lockdown

Assuming they didn’t work together, no they couldn’t

So Carrie and the kid should have been told to do one.

The article has actually been updated and appears to be accurate now. Shoddy journalism this morning.

@Bavarois

I've always had my suspicions about how unwell Johnson actually was. He's a very powerful man, he might have been escalated to 1:1 care at a lower level than us mere mortals would have. We don't know he was at death's door.

Just to reiterate, this thread wasn't intended to be 'ooh aren't the Tories awful?' (they are) but more to highlight the reporting of inaccurate facts.

Yes looking back it’s all mightily convenient that he was ill then is getting boozy with his wife and back 2 work 2 minutes after apparently being in intensive care

[quote LlamaParma]@madisonbridges so why is Carrie Symonds there when she doesn’t work for the Government?

I work in a school, I don’t bring OH to safeguarding meetings because he doesn’t work there.

I’m LOLling at the ‘they were wearing suits’ - what do you think they wear when having work drinks, corduory flares, feather boas and Hawain shirts?[/quote]
Symonds worked for Tory HQ so is obviously involved in political circles. I guess that's why she's there. I don't know when during the day this happened but someone said after an evening briefing. So you could see she would be discussing what had happened and the questions asked. I don't see Sam Cameron or Norma Major being involved like that. But I'd definitely see Cherie Blair being there. And Sarah Brown did PR for the Labour Party so she'd be there as well. And do you think Neil Kinnock would have left out Glenys Kinnock? Both Cherie and Glenys were very big hitters in the LP so of course they'd be there. If your husband was a on a committee that was bringing in new rules to do with safeguarding, you might ask to bring him along to keep your staff informed? No?

FYI. I'd never put a feather boa with a hawaiian shirt, not even on my days off. Philistine!

As someone else pointed out working for the Conservative Party is very different to working for the Government. She’d just had a baby 2 weeks earlier, presuming she was still on maternity leave seeing as you can’t return that quickly in England, so why was she there? She’s not a politician or civil servant, what were her skills needed for? And why did she have her child there if it was a work meeting? Presumably they have a nanny?

Open your eyes! Of COURSE this wasn’t a work meeting! I agree with a PP, it’s some sort of weird Stockholm Syndrome when people defend the indefensible

I am pretty sure that the rest of us were not allowed a work 'gathering' in the outdoors with colleagues at that point

I specifically remember it because I wanted to thank my junior Drs for their hard work at the end of their rotation but we weren't allowed to have a picnic or takeaway in the park or even the hospital grounds because it would be too many households mixing. The fact that we had been at work mixing with one another all day every day for months didn't excuse us so I don't see how it excuses them.

@LlamaParma

My speeding analogy is exactly the same as yours! There's a speed limit. You break it. You pay the consequence.

1. It’s not the same, speed limits protect people at all times, these lockdown laws were brought in to limit freedoms and liberties in the name of the ‘greater good’ - but it didn’t apply to the rule makers
2. How has Boris et al “paid the consequences”? After Cummings and the Barnard Castle fiasco, Matt Hancock feeling up a state paid aide, the Christmas party and now this gathering - after all this piss taking, how has anyone faced consequences? Did these people get fined like you would have been had you done the same on 15th May 2020?

It doesn't matter why the speed limit is on place, could be roadworks, people break limits and face the consequences. I still don't see the difference.

1. They lost North Shropshire. They can lose the next election. Borus Johnson can be sacked by his party. There ate consequences but it doesn't mean they have to be immediate consequences.

1. I did have tea (actually I had pop) and biscuits, and ate food (possibly cheese! 😱) with colleagues during March, April and May 2020. We might even, 🤫, have old funny stories and laughed and not kept to business the entire time.

As far as I know that didn't break the law.

1. A new rule about “You can’t speed because there’s something in the air that makes cars going over 30mph very very dangerous” then go doing 80mph themselves is a comparison, not just a general breaking of rules that have always been there to protect drivers

1. Are you having a giraffe? Tories lost ONE seat - that happens constantly with by-elections. What personal consequences have any cabinet members faced? Hancock doesn’t count as he resigned after the PM told the public to STFU about his rule breaking. Cummings broke lockdown rules 18 months ago - if you or I had had gone to a new county the consequences would’ve been immediate. A fine, that very day. He didn’t get that. He has never faced consequences for breaking the rules. Why do you think that is?

1. I personally couldn’t give a shit what the every day person does, I wasn’t one of the people on MN having fits over people popping to the supermarket for dishwasher tables. But you MUST see the difference is very simply - you weren’t making the rules expecting people to obey them, then breaking the rules yourself. You must see why that makes a difference?

@CovoidOfAllHumanity

I am pretty sure that the rest of us were not allowed a work 'gathering' in the outdoors with colleagues at that point

I specifically remember it because I wanted to thank my junior Drs for their hard work at the end of their rotation but we weren't allowed to have a picnic or takeaway in the park or even the hospital grounds because it would be too many households mixing. The fact that we had been at work mixing with one another all day every day for months didn't excuse us so I don't see how it excuses them.

That might have been your hospital rule. But I went into an office and did speak with colleagues in the same office and we did have food that we took in and we did all use a kettle and have drinks and biscuits etc. As for outside, there was no rule at my place of work that we couldn't sit out in the grounds but the tables and benches they supply are not very savoury. But they'd have probably accommodated a handful of people. Households mixing was for social activities. If you're working there were no household limits I don't think. Certainly we were more than 6 households in our office. So I guess it depends on whether you believe this was work related or not.

@madisonbridges do you work for the Tory party??

Having refreshments at your desk because most people need a drink when working is not the same as the rule makers having a little jolly with workmates wives after a shift.

I live abroad but have been following the development of the pandemic in the UK and I can only say that, after the behaviour of your leaders, it is no wonder that some people don't believe in the existence of covid.

@LlamaParma

As someone else pointed out working for the Conservative Party is very different to working for the Government. She’d just had a baby 2 weeks earlier, presuming she was still on maternity leave seeing as you can’t return that quickly in England, so why was she there? She’s not a politician or civil servant, what were her skills needed for? And why did she have her child there if it was a work meeting? Presumably they have a nanny?

Open your eyes! Of COURSE this wasn’t a work meeting! I agree with a PP, it’s some sort of weird Stockholm Syndrome when people defend the indefensible

If people cannot see it now, there are two possibilities in my opinion:

1. They will be benefit from the double standards and government control of the ordinary people/society.
2. Stockholm Syndrome.

@LlamaParma

1. Oh, whatever. 🥱

1. You can only lose seats when they become available. And they didn't just lose it, they were annihilated. Hancocks lost his job through public pressure. Cummings was investigated by the police and they deemed no law had been broken. Due process and all that.

The Tories will suffer for all this but it takes time for consequences to show up. A drunken encounter can take nine months for the consequence to show.

1. Of course I see the difference between a rule maker breaking the rules and an ordinary citizen. Where have I said any different? I have been clear that as a country we have a reasonable expectation that those who make the rules will keep the rules. I'm just saying that discussing work outside might not be breaking the rules. Further, as there's no law saying that having alcohol whilst having a meeting is illegal, I'd think it'd be difficult for the police to find this was not a work meeting. IE, people working in their everyday place of work, in their work clothes, discussing work round a table outside rather than inside does not seem to me to be breaking any lockdown law.

[quote LlamaParma]@madisonbridges do you work for the Tory party??

Having refreshments at your desk because most people need a drink when working is not the same as the rule makers having a little jolly with workmates wives after a shift.[/quote]
It was in the workplace garden. If you think that's a jolly, you don't have much of a social life.

OP, it is not gaslighting.

@madisonbridges It was in the workplace garden. If you think that's a jolly, you don't have much of a social life.

In May 2020 there was no socialising allowed. At all. So yes, it was a jolly.

@AlfonsoTheUnrepentant

OP, it is not gaslighting.

Please explain, I really feel it is but happy to hear another opinion. I assume you've read my posts and not just the title.

@madisonbridges I’m pretty certain - because there’s was a bit of controversy a few years ago - alcohol isn’t allowed in government meetings. Certainly hasn’t been allowed in local government meetings for at least 20 years. Also now allowed - spouses and their children who do not work for the government.

It is so excruciatingly obvious that this was NOT a work meeting I’m flabbergasted how anyone can defend it. No one is objecting to work meetings in the garden, but this isn’t a work meeting so that’s irrelevant.

It’s actually quite worrying that people blindly believe the crap the government feeds us when their leaders have consistently shown themselves to be liars and rule breakers

@madisonbridges how many times have spouses brought their babies to important and confidential meetings in your workplace? And given the fact that these are the most senior politicians we can safely assume whatever the ‘meeting’ was about, it was confidential and important. They’d hardly be putting the tea bad order in would they. So why does a person who’s simply a partner of a ‘meeting’ member have to be there?

Scumbags with posh accents.

Not a fan of this government.

But this constant whingeing about gatherings is getting too much. I see a few people in small groups in the garden of their workplace.

"How are people so naive still to think this is a work meeting?!"

They don't they've just been given the justification and are rowing in behind it. There's no logical way to justify it as a work meeting.... Sorry there's no logical way to justify it as a work meeting if you allow even one follow up question.

If it's a work meeting, why are they drinking alcohol? Is Johnson regularly conducting government business whole drinking?
If it's a work meeting then why is there a member of the public present?
If it's a work meeting then why does that exempt them from social distancing?

It's a whole load of "shut up and move on you plebs. As Raab explained to you all already very clearly, it was a work meeting outside of normal work hours involving a number of people having a few drinks to unwind after work had finished."

Let’s remind ourselves of this of this video where a family, just a few weeks before this garden ‘meeting’ were told they’re not even allowed to be in their front garden. metro.co.uk/video/police-apologise-officer-warned-family-garden-2149156/?ito=vjs-link

These people had the police at their front door for doing nothing wrong. Where is the consequences for the posh ones?

@HeatonGrove

Not a fan of this government.

But this constant whingeing about gatherings is getting too much. I see a few people in small groups in the garden of their workplace.

Except it’s not because at least 2 people don’t work there!

I’m sure I remember a story at the beginning of covid of a little boy who died in hospital whose family could go in and see him.

That did get a lot of media coverage at the time.