Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
CryingAtTheDiscotheque · 21/01/2022 15:37

There is no witness who heard what Wakeford alleges. It is an allegation, not evidence.

You what? Wakeford is the witness to the conversation he had with chief whips, when they threatened to remove funding for a school in his constituency if he didn't vote the right way.

Florianus · 21/01/2022 15:38

@CryingAtTheDiscotheque

Sue Gray's inquiry (i) is not independent (ii) requires her to investigate people more senior than herself/her bosses (iii) aims only to reach a "swift" and "general" understanding of the nature of the gatherings (iv) has no power to require witnesses to attend interviews or to disclose documents, and therefore is likely to be based on incomplete evidence.

You'll forgive me if I'm not holding my breath for her "findings"

As I have already said, a judicial enquiry might be better but is likely to take years and cost a fortune. Many people are already likely to have forgotten the details of drinks events held two years ago.

I think we should wait for Sue Gray's report. Dismissing it before it is even published smacks of bias.

Florianus · 21/01/2022 15:42

@CryingAtTheDiscotheque

There is no witness who heard what Wakeford alleges. It is an allegation, not evidence.

You what? Wakeford is the witness to the conversation he had with chief whips, when they threatened to remove funding for a school in his constituency if he didn't vote the right way.

How's about I take you to court for theft? I know there are no witnesses, but I say you stole my wallet. I must be right because I say so.
daimbarsatemydogsbone · 21/01/2022 15:44

Boris Johnson is a lying bellend.

jgw1 · 21/01/2022 15:48

@Blossomtoes

I see Savid Javid is now acknowledging that parties - he used that word - took place in Downing Street. From The Telegraph:

We do now know there were some parties. We know that because some of the people that were involved and broke the rules have come forward to say so,” he said.

”Of course things like this damage our democracy. From what we already know from the people who have come forward and apologised for the parties that took place, for example the one on the eve of Prince Philip’s funeral, that was completely wrong

“It was wrong in every single way. The way we now get through this is to get the facts out, get them on the table so we can all reach a judgment ourselves,” he added.

Apologies for the Clavinova-seque copy and paste.

But I am sure that various posters who seemed so knowledgable told me there were no parties.

Probably the Saj is another of the ranting pathetic silly men I was hearing about the other day.

NiceShrubbery · 21/01/2022 15:49

No Florianus, bias is what an internal investigation will involve. It smacks of common sense to dismiss a report for which the terms of reference were set by the person who is the subject of the investigation.

He'll have to be removed by other means. Sustained public outrage and some Tory MPs growing spines and mounting a leadership challenge. Governing with zero respect isn't sustainable, he won't be PM for much longer.

CryingAtTheDiscotheque · 21/01/2022 15:50

Yes, daimbars, he certainly is! The only question is whether he can, once again, slither away leaving others to take the blame.

jgw1 · 21/01/2022 15:52

*Yes, not least because we now know that the person who warned that the party should not go ahead sent the message to the party organiser (Martin Reynolds) and not to Boris Johnson.

If you are just patient and wait for Sue Gray's report next week it will save you getting in such a muddle about what happened.*

Ah, but how is Sue Gray's report going to be any different to William Wraggs? It is just going to be a list of the things people have told her, in the same way that Wragg reported on the things he had been told.

Without 24/7 recordings from every room in Downing Street and where ever else Boris might have wandered that day we will not have complete evidence that no one warned him that a party was a party.

Notonthestairs · 21/01/2022 15:54

We shouldn't need an inquiry because No 10 shouldn't have been throwing parties when the rest of the nation was under lockdown.

Pretending it's irrelevant that the report will be produced & reviewed internally smacks of bias.

jgw1 · 21/01/2022 15:54

@Florianus Does this make any sense to you.

As I have already said, a witness IS evidence. There is no witness who heard what Boris alleges. (that he was not told the party broke the law) It is an allegation, not evidence.

If the recording and/or emails that are claimed to exist but have never been seen actually appear, then there is evidence.

ClaudineClare · 21/01/2022 15:56

Janiiejones and Florianus have been telling us all that we are stupid for believing that there were indeed parties and/or that we are allowing ourselves to be fed lies by the media.

Will they now apologise to those of us they have patronised and insulted?

jgw1 · 21/01/2022 15:57

As I have already said, a judicial enquiry might be better but is likely to take years and cost a fortune. Many people are already likely to have forgotten the details of drinks events held two years ago.

@FlorianusI can remember with great clarity every drinks event I went to in April and May 2020. Can you?

Florianus · 21/01/2022 15:57

@NiceShrubbery

No Florianus, bias is what an internal investigation will involve. It smacks of common sense to dismiss a report for which the terms of reference were set by the person who is the subject of the investigation.

He'll have to be removed by other means. Sustained public outrage and some Tory MPs growing spines and mounting a leadership challenge. Governing with zero respect isn't sustainable, he won't be PM for much longer.

The subject of the investigation is not Johnson. Read the terms of reference to discover that the subject of the investigation is the nature of the gatherings on government premises, including attendance, the setting and their purpose’. It is likely that the PM will be mentioned, but the gatherings were largely for members of the civil service rather than the government.
Florianus · 21/01/2022 15:59

@jgw1

As I have already said, a judicial enquiry might be better but is likely to take years and cost a fortune. Many people are already likely to have forgotten the details of drinks events held two years ago.

@FlorianusI can remember with great clarity every drinks event I went to in April and May 2020. Can you?

No, as I didn't go to any.
CryingAtTheDiscotheque · 21/01/2022 15:59

@FlorianusI can remember with great clarity every drinks event I went to in April and May 2020. Can you?

Ha - quite! Grin

Florianus · 21/01/2022 16:02

@ClaudineClare

Janiiejones and Florianus have been telling us all that we are stupid for believing that there were indeed parties and/or that we are allowing ourselves to be fed lies by the media.

Will they now apologise to those of us they have patronised and insulted?

Where have I ever said there were no parties? Read more carefully and you will see that I have only written about the event on 25/5/20 and have said that the word "party" was not on the invitation.

Will you perhaps now apologise to me for getting things so wrong? No, I thought not.

22itsallnew · 21/01/2022 16:03

Florianus - Irregardless of whether its termed drinks or a party 'bring your own booze to enjoy the lovely weather' in a group not consisting of your household members was NOT allowed in May 2020 - and anyone who says it was is talking out of their anus.

I don't need Sue Gray to explain the rules then as I have the PM's own instructions to the country www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-address-to-the-nation-on-coronavirus-10-may-2020

I can't believe people are defending his shitty 'do what I say, not as I do' behaviour.

Florianus · 21/01/2022 16:18

@Blossomtoes

I have no idea what it was. Nor do you. I doubt that anyone will ever be able to decide since the invitation was not to a party but to drinks

But you’ve spent the best part of a week arguing the toss that it wasn’t a party!😂 You’ve obviously been to the Johnson school of consistency. I hope you never have to give evidence in court, a decent lawyer would tie you know knots in no time.

I have spent the best part of a week arguing that it was not described as a party. To learn to read properly, please.
Florianus · 21/01/2022 16:22

@22itsallnew

Florianus - Irregardless of whether its termed drinks or a party 'bring your own booze to enjoy the lovely weather' in a group not consisting of your household members was NOT allowed in May 2020 - and anyone who says it was is talking out of their anus.

I don't need Sue Gray to explain the rules then as I have the PM's own instructions to the country www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-address-to-the-nation-on-coronavirus-10-may-2020

I can't believe people are defending his shitty 'do what I say, not as I do' behaviour.

There were no rules stating that workers could not eat nor drink together. The rules were about meeting other households in public places. The garden of No.10 is not a public place.

Once again I suggest that you wait for Sue Gray's report, as you don't appear to understand the rules for workplaces.

Blossomtoes · 21/01/2022 16:25

Will you perhaps now apologise to me for getting things so wrong? No, I thought not.

No, I’d rather go through the entire thread to copy and paste all your posts where you categorically insisted it wasn’t a party. God knows, there are enough of them.

Notonthestairs · 21/01/2022 16:27

It's the idea that stipulating that the word party has to be on the invitation for it to be a party that boggles my mind.

Anyway thank heavens it's Friday, I hope you all have work events lined up.

Peregrina · 21/01/2022 16:28

I have spent the best part of a week arguing that it was not described as a party.

It doesn't matter what it was called. If it had all the behaviour which goes with a party - food, drink, and people from various places coming together to enjoy themselves then it's a party.

22itsallnew · 21/01/2022 16:29

Did they attach an agenda for the 'work' in the meeting in the garden in the evening? No. The invitation was to 'bring your own booze' to enjoy drinks in the lovely weather.

No one else in the country were permitted to have drinks in the garden with colleagues, in fact we'd have quite likely had a visit from the police.

Mayorquimby2 · 21/01/2022 16:38

"How's about I take you to court for theft? I know there are no witnesses, but I say you stole my wallet. I must be right because I say so."

Pssssssst

You'd be the witness in that case

Peregrina · 21/01/2022 16:39

Weren't a couple of students fined quite heavily for throwing a party and then thrown out of their University to boot? They should just have said, bring booze - we are holding a seminar.