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
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be really enjoying Boris Johnson's downfall?

998 replies

GrendelsGrandma · 19/01/2022 07:27

I know he'll be replaced by someone equally awful and I know he's not quite gone yet, but I can't remember when I felt uplifted about politics and the ejection of this national embarrassment is warming my cockles. Anyone else feel the same?

OP posts:
ClaudineClare · 20/01/2022 09:44

If you learn to read properly you will realise that I do not defend what happened in theNo.10garden - I have repeatedly pointed out that those responsible should be disciplined. But blaming the wrong person

So you believe Johnson when he says that he didn't know it was a party and/or no one told him that the party he didn't know was a party was against the rules? Apologies if my reading skills are once again lacking and I have misunderstood you.

Florianus · 20/01/2022 09:44

And any BYOB jolly to enjoy the sunshine could not be described as minimising meeting/gatherings (work or otherwise).

Why not wait for the result of the enquiry instead of pretending that you know what an event you didn't even attend was for?

merrymouse · 20/01/2022 09:46

Why not wait for the result of the enquiry instead of pretending that you know what an event you didn't even attend was for?

?????

The event was described in the email.

It’s really unclear why you are trying to defend something that even the people involved aren’t defending.

Florianus · 20/01/2022 09:46

ClaudineClare
So you believe Johnson when he says that he didn't know it was a party and/or no one told him that the party he didn't know was a party was against the rules?

I have no evidence one way or the other. Do you?

merrymouse · 20/01/2022 09:47

But blaming the wrong person

Because you think he is thick?

the80sweregreat · 20/01/2022 09:47

We know all the arguments about this topic and although what I think they all did was very wrong back then and should not have happened , nobody can do anything much until this report comes out where Sue Gray will make her conclusions to if it was a party or a work event and who was to blame. Let's hope it's not a complete whitewash.
There are much more worrying things going on now , covid restrictions being lifted soon might not be such a good thing ( that might backfire a bit ) and April and higher bills are around the corner too as well as Russia wanting a war with Ukraine and the raise in NI will hit some families very hard as well.
I'm not suggesting people move on, but they are waiting for these inquiries and seems the P M is safe at the moment anyway and even seems to have won back some support since yesterday despite a few blips.
These letters to the 1922 committee didn't materialize much either it seems.
Have to see what the inquiry comes up with.

Florianus · 20/01/2022 09:48

@merrymouse

Why not wait for the result of the enquiry instead of pretending that you know what an event you didn't even attend was for?

?????

The event was described in the email.

It’s really unclear why you are trying to defend something that even the people involved aren’t defending.

Where in that invitation does it say that the event was a party?
Notonthestairs · 20/01/2022 09:57

For the love of God - it doesn't need to mention a party.

They were supposed to minimise meetings and gatherings for work or otherwise.

merrymouse · 20/01/2022 10:03

Where in that invitation does it say that the event was a party?

You are going round and round in circles. The email makes it clear that it was a social occasion for 100 people and not work.

Zonder · 20/01/2022 10:04

Especially since not all of those 100 people even worked there.

Florianus · 20/01/2022 10:08

@Notonthestairs

For the love of God - it doesn't need to mention a party.

They were supposed to minimise meetings and gatherings for work or otherwise.

I have already said that IF the event broke the law, the organiser(s) should be punished.

By "IF" I mean IF the inquiry finds that the event broke the law.

Goldenbear · 20/01/2022 10:10

TwentyFirstCenturyTricoteuse FPTP is a valid point but why did Starmer decide to not back PR then?

Equally, I have posted this earlier on this thread but it seems to have been ignored as apparently it is 'whataboutery' but the Labour Party did not oppose the benefit cuts brought in by the Welfare Bill back in 2015, Keir Starmer being one of the hundreds of MPs that abstained. Now that's what I call standing up for the working man! I don't know how anyone can say these things are Whataboutery! They're highly relevant to what has played out in politics over the last 5 years! It is like saying, trying to understand why voters in the industrial heartlands that were always red became blue is irrelevant as it is just history and 'whataboutery'. I think people will not vote Tory as a result of this debacle but I'm not sure it's the Labour Party they will run to.

Notonthestairs · 20/01/2022 10:10

It's an internal report made by a staff member.

I'm expecting them to point the finger at a few disposable staff members and whitewash the rest.

Florianus · 20/01/2022 10:11

@merrymouse

Where in that invitation does it say that the event was a party?

You are going round and round in circles. The email makes it clear that it was a social occasion for 100 people and not work.

It is up to the inquiry, not you, to decide if the event was a social occasion. Whether or not an event to thank workers for putting in effort beyond the call of duty is a social occasion is a matter for considered debate, not knee-jerk reactions.
SueSaid · 20/01/2022 10:15

'For the love of God - it doesn't need to mention a party.'

For the love of God it does because as I've said repeatedly it could have been a work place event which was allowed. It may have been grossly exaggerated by the hysterical media played by Cummings. The inquiry will identify what it actually was.

Maverick197 · 20/01/2022 10:18

And the smirk is back on...he really thinks he's got away with it!

ThinkAboutItTomorrow · 20/01/2022 10:19

@Notonthestairs

It's getting silly now.

Regulations allowed people to go in to work where they could not reasonably be expected to work from home.

Whilst at work they were expected to minimise all meetings "and other gatherings" in the workplace.

So no need to define parties.

And any BYOB jolly to enjoy the sunshine could not be described as minimising meeting/gatherings (work or otherwise).

Spot on.

My work was super strict. They read the rules and only allowed us to meet if it was a) business critical b) only possible to deliver face to face.

No meeting over 2 hours. No meeting more than 4 people. Masks throughout.

There was absolutely no chance of a team build get together out of hours.

*@Florianus

It's easy for Johnson to say that now, but the point is that at the time he did not put a stop to it because, as he said, he believed it was a work event.*

So he didn't know his own rules? This sort of work event was not in the rules. Equally he didn't think about how it would look to the people giving up so much to stick to his rules?

Florianus · 20/01/2022 10:22

@Notonthestairs

It's an internal report made by a staff member.

I'm expecting them to point the finger at a few disposable staff members and whitewash the rest.

It is normal to point the finger at the organiser of illegal events - the night-club owner, the café owner who opened illegally etc - rather than those who merely attended.
Cornettoninja · 20/01/2022 10:23

Well William Wragg has just dropped a bomb….

AutumnAlmanack · 20/01/2022 10:24

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Florianus · 20/01/2022 10:25

ThinkAboutItTomorrow
This sort of work event was not in the rules.

Exactly. That is why there is debate about it, rather than certainty.

VikingOnTheFridge · 20/01/2022 10:29

@JaniieJones

'For the love of God - it doesn't need to mention a party.'

For the love of God it does because as I've said repeatedly it could have been a work place event which was allowed. It may have been grossly exaggerated by the hysterical media played by Cummings. The inquiry will identify what it actually was.

Actually, the test wasn't whether it was a workplace event. It was whether it was reasonably necessary for work purposes. The regulations therefore allowed for something to be both a workplace event and not permitted. One hopes those in charge of the enquiry understand this.
Florianus · 20/01/2022 10:30

@Cornettoninja

Well William Wragg has just dropped a bomb….
"William Wragg, who is chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, told MPs that Number 10 staff, special advisers and government whips had said there would be embarrassing stories released to the press if they did not support the prime minister."

Is Cummings ready to open up more of his filing boxes? I wonder what "embarrassing stories" might be revealed? Shock

ENoeuf · 20/01/2022 10:30

Shock William wragg - LBC reporting that the person who defected yesterday has already been referred to as having ‘personal problems’.

Swipe left for the next trending thread