Page 25 | To be really enjoying Boris Johnson's downfall Part 3 Cake ambush

Roussette · 27/01/2022 11:54

Context Janiie

You and/or Clav have linked and spoken continually about the singing schoolchildren as a way of saying it was OK to sing happy birthday... so I have my context thanks

Inside versus Outside.

jgw1 · 27/01/2022 11:56

@Notonthestairs

"That says rules were broken "in most homes", not that everyone broke the rules."

Well that's alright then. Except it's not true.

The party of law & order.

Did they have a fancy dress party that had a law and order theme?

Can't think what else would make them the party of law and order.

DePfeffoff · 27/01/2022 11:57

@Florianus

borntobequiet: Those that set the rules broke their own rules

Most of those attending these gatherings were civil servants. They didn't set the rules. The rules were set by parliament, the advice was set by cabinet. Few MPs or cabinet members have been accused of partying.

Note "Most" and "Few". Not all. Amongst those attending was the head of the government which made the rules. They weren't spontaneously generated by Parliament, they were put before Parliament by government, supported by the Prime Minister. Before you come up with bollocks about the PM not actually drafting them and putting them before Parliament, obviously he has to carry responsibility for rules put forward by his government and has to set a decent example by following them.

itsgettingweird · 27/01/2022 11:59

Yes there were no rules about singing outside.

No rules about groups sizes in schools. Even the SD was just recommended guidance with the understanding you couldn't keep those entitled to be in school and attending apart realistically on the account of age and emotional ability to adhere to it.

Rules for school children were totally different for those in a workplace or in private residence. The same as rules in shops differed and those for hospitals and care homes.

I find it worrying that people who think they have some superior intelligence to us and we just don't understand how Boris is right cannot tell the difference between singing indoors in a cabinet office with people who don't work there isn't completely different to school kids outside socially distanced and singing.

Especially as one was against the rules

ThinkAboutItTomorrow · 27/01/2022 12:02

The point is Boris Johnson has misled the public.
*
He's admitted misleading the public. He denied any knowledge of meetings in gardens or get together as in the workplace. Yet then admitted being there. And admitted in hindsight it probably wasn't wise. Then admitted he should have said at the time they should have stopped it.*

This is it exactly. There were indoor and outdoor gatherings that weren't essential for work. In very clear contravention of the rules at the time. Many of them. Some attended by the PM. He now recognises that was wrong. But only after he ran out of room to lie and deny his attendance or knowledge. Lying to Parliament that is, not just the public.

The rest isn't important.

He broke the rules, then lied about it. He made a very poor choice and he cannot be trusted to run the country.

DePfeffoff · 27/01/2022 12:03

I like this one

twitter.com/lolliheart3/status/1486384906380918787

jgw1 · 27/01/2022 12:03

@DePfeffoff

and the allowed eating and drinking in the workplace.

Do stop slipping in this nonsense. No. 10 accepts that it wasn't allowed. By no stretch of the imagination was it reasonably necessary for work purposes.

No I think you are wrong there. Big Baby probably was refusing to do any work and having a tantrum unless he had a birthday party on his birthday.

Florianus · 27/01/2022 12:05

@Roussette

Flo

Well ... a random decorator obviously can.

I have no doubt that she would have had to be signed in.

DePfeffoff · 27/01/2022 12:07

The facts are food and beverages were consumed by colleagues in the workplace < sorry to repeat but some folk don't seem to understand it was allowed> .

No, @JaniieJones, repeating this fiction doesn't change the facts. Indoor gatherings were not allowed unless reasonably required for work purposes. Self-evidently this was not reasonably required, not even no. 10 are claiming that it was.

jgw1 · 27/01/2022 12:07

Before you come up with bollocks about the PM not actually drafting them and putting them before Parliament, obviously he has to carry responsibility for rules put forward by his government and has to set a decent example by following them.

No, no, we have already established that the responsibilities of the Prime Minister have changed significantly under the "leadership" of Boris Johnson. He is not responsible for the work of his staff in Downing Street, or cabinet or other ministers. He is not responsible for the legislation that his government put before parliament, or for the office culture in his office.
As I understand it he has sole responsibility for the pot plants, lies and for maintaining morale in Downing Street by wandering about doing his clown impressions.

Florianus · 27/01/2022 12:10

DEPfe

Before you come up with bollocks about the PM not actually drafting them and putting them before Parliament, obviously he has to carry responsibility for rules put forward by his government and has to set a decent example by following them.

Nobody is denying that. I am simply saying that it is daft to describe them as "his rules".

DePfeffoff · 27/01/2022 12:12

@Florianus

She was there to do a specific job in the PM’s flat. There was no need to enter the cabinet office.

I suggest you study the plans of the Nos.10-12 Downing Street.

They demonstrate that there is no conceivable need for an interior designer working on the flat to go into the cabinet room.

And the jury is definitely out on whether the designer was working at all, given that in November Johnson was cadging finance to enable the work to begin.

itsgettingweird · 27/01/2022 12:12

@Florianus

DEPfe

Before you come up with bollocks about the PM not actually drafting them and putting them before Parliament, obviously he has to carry responsibility for rules put forward by his government and has to set a decent example by following them.

Nobody is denying that. I am simply saying that it is daft to describe them as "his rules".

Well they weren't mine.

But I had to follow them or be fined.

So we can all agree that so did he. And he didn't. He's admitted he didn't. He's apologised for it and admitted in hindsight he should have stopped the garden gathering.

Your defending him for something he's apologised for.

And it's not getting boring

DePfeffoff · 27/01/2022 12:14

@ClaudineClare

He looks terrible in this photo from the Guardian just now . Either the babies have kept him up all night or he has been on the sauce.

Getting over the coke high which kept him going through PMQ yesterday?

Blossomtoes · 27/01/2022 12:16

And the jury is definitely out on whether the designer was working at all, given that in November Johnson was cadging finance to enable the work to begin.

But according to Clav that was dfferent work 🤷‍♀️ I see the usual suspects have derailed the thread again with arguments about when is food work food and dancing on the head of a pin to ascertain ownership of rules. It’s all reeking of desperation.

Cornettoninja · 27/01/2022 12:16

And the jury is definitely out on whether the designer was working at all, given that in November Johnson was cadging finance to enable the work to begin

It does quite nicely feed into another of his noteworthy moments as PM doesn’t it?

Oh what a tangled web we weave…

DePfeffoff · 27/01/2022 12:20

Non-essential shops were open on the 19th June 2020 - you could wander into John Lewis and talk to someone about curtains and wallpaper. Face masks were not mandatory until 24 July 2020.

You couldn't hold an indoor gathering at John Lewis unless it was reasonably necessary for work purposes. If staff there had held a birthday do, that on its own would have been unlawful, and inviting in tradesmen who wanted to ask someone a question would have exacerbated that.

The difference is, of course, that staff at JL weren't responsible for putting in place the rules that they were (hypothetically) breaking.

Cornettoninja · 27/01/2022 12:21

@Florianus

DEPfe

Before you come up with bollocks about the PM not actually drafting them and putting them before Parliament, obviously he has to carry responsibility for rules put forward by his government and has to set a decent example by following them.

Nobody is denying that. I am simply saying that it is daft to describe them as "his rules".

Is it? Boris Johnson holds the highest office in this country the buck stops with him.

He takes the credit for the achievements for vaccines so he’s as culpable for other policy. Or are we happy with moving towards a society where people in positions of power can just pick out what suits them?

merrymouse · 27/01/2022 12:21

Nobody is denying that. I am simply saying that it is daft to describe them as "his rules".

Being a big believer in the ‘great man’ theory of history, I’m sure he thinks he is responsible for ‘his’ Brexit and ‘his’ vaccine roll out. From a political point of view it’s therefore daft to claim that rules put in place by the Johnson government at a time of crisis were not ‘his’ rules.

Roussette · 27/01/2022 12:21

I have no doubt that she would have had to be signed in.

Whether she is signed in to No.11 or not, what was she doing in the Cabinet office?
Can any tradesperson go into the cabinet office?

SueSaid · 27/01/2022 12:21

'Getting over the coke high which kept him going through PMQ yesterday?'

Blimey. It's all getting a bit desperate now isn’t it. Isn't this defamatory?

Roussette · 27/01/2022 12:23

I know where the desperation is on this thread.... and it ain't with the majority

Cornettoninja · 27/01/2022 12:25

Report it then @JaniieJones. MN will deal with it as they see fit, there’s no need to try to police it yourself.

DePfeffoff · 27/01/2022 12:27

@Florianus

DEPfe

Before you come up with bollocks about the PM not actually drafting them and putting them before Parliament, obviously he has to carry responsibility for rules put forward by his government and has to set a decent example by following them.

Nobody is denying that. I am simply saying that it is daft to describe them as "his rules".

Hooray. So rather than nitpicking about that, let's move forward and note that you accept that he was disobeying the rules for which he as PM carried major responsibility. Is that the conduct of a good Prime Minister, especially at a time of major crisis for the country?

Blossomtoes · 27/01/2022 12:30

Nobody is denying that. I am simply saying that it is daft to describe them as "his rules".

Perhaps someone should tell my Tory MP who wrote

I understand and share the anger felt by people across the country at allegations of gatherings in Downing Street during the pandemic. So many of us have made extraordinary personal sacrifices throughout the pandemic. We followed the rules to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our communities. I know for many people, it is deeply upsetting to think that those in Downing Street, who set the rules, did not follow them.