Part 6 A thread for the continued enjoyment of Boris' downfall, enjoyment being important

[jgw1]

What the title says.

This will be the one where he resigns, so if please keep the whatabout to a minimum.

I see the UK economy is the fastest growing economy in the G7.

If you look at the last year. And don't look at the graphs behind the data
And you don't look at graphs comparing other G7 countries
Or look at the last quarter.
Or look at before the pandemic

We dropped a lot in 2020 - which means that you can get a much higher percentage recovery compared to an economy that didn't fall as much.

But no doubt Johnson will keep saying that we are the fastest growing economy in the G7 without any context.

More or Less had a feature this week which talked about Johnson’s repeated incorrect use of PAYE figures to show job growth.

@GreenLunchBox

Guto Harri having a mare this week twitter.com/jonlis1/status/1491911952247005186?t=qGbcSpwyD2NOm03FXNCDzg&s=19

You love to see it

Now using the old "my account got hacked" excuse. So Johnson has a Director of Communications who cannot control his own communications.

Stark illustration of the fact that no-one vaguely competent wants to work for him.

@merrymouse

More or Less had a feature this week which talked about Johnson’s repeated incorrect use of PAYE figures to show job growth.

More or Less are very good at picking up people who misuse statistics Or just lie

Steven Swinford
Exclusive:
Boris Johnson will appoint his own private lawyer if he receives a questionnaire from the police over alleged breaches of lockdown rules
The lawyer will focus on his ‘unique’ legal situation - that No 10 is both his home and workplace

"Statistics can be made to prove anything — even the truth."

@DuncinToffee

Steven Swinford Exclusive: Boris Johnson will appoint his own private lawyer if he receives a questionnaire from the police over alleged breaches of lockdown rules The lawyer will focus on his ‘unique’ legal situation - that No 10 is both his home and workplace

I thought the Johnsons lived in No.11 ?

Mind you, the garden shared by both homes and used as an extension of the workplace was always going to be the door to a legal loophole - Johnson hinted at that weeks ago when he claimed that one of the gatherings was not technically a breach of the rules.

I don't think a 30/40 people in anyone's garden was permitted.

I've wondered for a long time what went on when they decamped to Chequers.

Parties at home weren't permitted.

Seen many replies pointing out that Rudi Giuliani is available

More from Steven Swinford
A senior ally of Boris Johnson has said the Metropolitan Police will need to be 'very certain' that he has breached lockdown rules before issuing an FPN
'There is inevitably a degree of discretion here. Do you want the Met Police deciding who the prime minister is?'

This has a vibe of the PM is above the law

@DuncinToffee

Steven Swinford Exclusive: Boris Johnson will appoint his own private lawyer if he receives a questionnaire from the police over alleged breaches of lockdown rules The lawyer will focus on his ‘unique’ legal situation - that No 10 is both his home and workplace

He really is a fucking disgrace. Yes, he is entitled to do this, but does he not realise that the optics are terrible?

I think this will make people angrier-a privileged man using his wealth and power to wriggle out of things in a way ordinary people could never do.

@Notonthestairs

I don't think a 30/40 people in anyone's garden was permitted.

I've wondered for a long time what went on when they decamped to Chequers.

But 30/40 people in a workplace were allowed. That's why there will be legal arguments and not some simplistic decision.

I wish there was a way of taking it to court. Let a jury decide.

The lawyer will focus on his ‘unique’ legal situation - that No 10 is both his home and workplace

It'll have to be an ingenious lawyer to get around the fact that gatherings in the workplace weren't allowed unless they were reasonably necessary for work.

'There is inevitably a degree of discretion here. Do you want the Met Police deciding who the prime minister is?'

Silly thing to say. The Met Police only have to decide whether the PM has committed an offence. If Swinford seriously wants to claim that no PM should ever be arrested for a criminal offence because it will lead to their having to resign, he needs to have a think about the consequences that would flow from that.

I think I will leave this thread for today. I feel really angry about this latest development and I don't think I can stomach certain posters right now.

if only he had read and understood the laws he signed off, again

But 30/40 people in a workplace were allowed. That's why there will be legal arguments and not some simplistic decision.

30/40 people physically in a workplace when it was reasonably necessary for work, yes - and even then the expectation was that there would be social distancing and lots of precautions. 30/40 people who didn't even physically work in the same area gathering together with BYOB and snacks after work, no.

Look after yourself ClaudineClare

I am enjoying the Olympics at the moment, 10k Speed Skating

Cheers DuncinToffee, watching speed skating sound like a good distraction.

I don't think a 30/40 people in anyone's garden was permitted.

Surprisingly the law against gatherings in a private place only came into power on 01/06/2020.

Until then the law relied on nobody being allowed to leave the house except for specific purposes - work, shopping, etc.

So if you left the house to go to work and, without returning home, attended a party in the garden at work there was no law against it.

Well advised ClaudineClare. But make sure you come back for the full "Four Seasons" moment which may still be some threads away. It's a lovely sunny day. Enjoy it.

As I understand it from legal commentators, once you stopped being at work your reason for having left the house disappeared (apart, obviously, from getting home), so a gathering in the garden at work was against the law. The emphasis was on the fact that being together for work was only permitted if it was reasonably necessary for work.

@ClaudineClare

I wish there was a way of taking it to court. Let a jury decide.

If anyone fined refuses to pay, I believe the case automatically goes to court - but only in front of a magistrate as juries are only used for serious cases. (Yes, I know some regard parties as serious, but legally failure to pay a fixed penalty notice is not regarded as a major crime).

@DePfeffoff

As I understand it from legal commentators, once you stopped being at work your reason for having left the house disappeared (apart, obviously, from getting home), so a gathering in the garden at work was against the law. The emphasis was on the fact that being together for work was only permitted if it was reasonably necessary for work.

Did Johnson "leave the house" by going into its garden? (Sorry, but I am anticipating what any good lawyer would argue).

'But 30/40 people in a workplace were allowed. That's why there will be legal arguments and not some simplistic decision.'

Exactly. Posters on these threads have continually applied the social/home rules to these gatherings where most of us know workplaces were different. Hence Starmer's beer and nibbles indoors with others at a time when home socialising like this was not allowed.