Part 7.5

[jgw1]

AIBU to still be enjoying falls?

For me, what this shows is that the UK needs a complete overhaul of its parliamentary rules.
Bojo has driven a coach an horses through the previous arrangements by his disregard for them.
We have a situation that a FPN or not will decide whether a sitting PM is removed from office.

It could well be decided on the political persuasion of the officer who will ultimately decide, even if that person is Ms Dick.

I do not see that is a satisfactory state of affairs at all.

The rules only allowed gatherings of people when they were "reasonably necessary" for work. Even if they were talking about work at a gathering it was illegal unless the work could not be done without gathering.
Millions of people managed much more complex work remotely so it's a flimsy argument that Whitehall work was only possible with regular boozy crowds of people.
From the Christmas quiz it's clear that they are set up for Zoom, and could work remotely. There's no way all those gatherings were excusable, let alone "necessary".

@InMySpareTime

The rules only allowed gatherings of people when they were "reasonably necessary" for work. Even if they were talking about work at a gathering it was illegal unless the work could not be done without gathering. Millions of people managed much more complex work remotely so it's a flimsy argument that Whitehall work was only possible with regular boozy crowds of people. From the Christmas quiz it's clear that they are set up for Zoom, and could work remotely. There's no way all those gatherings were excusable, let alone "necessary".

Yes I've noticed the "reasonably" a lot. I think that's where Johnson's lawyers will try and argue "we were in a pandemic - it's reasonable to meet face to face".

However the argument needs to be whether it was reasonable to meet or if work could be done another way - rather than if it was necessary for food and drink there as there was no ruling on refreshments!

And the email about meeting due to working hard and bringing refreshments is evidence that this was not a works meeting. But a meeting because they'd worked hard.

Reports in The Times that Jeremy Wright QC MP (and former attorney general) has written to his constituents.

"He said that the publication of the full report by Sue Gray, the senior civil servant investigating the gatherings, would provide “crucial” further details. Johnson would have to resign if he attended a party, he said, because it would mean he had misled parliament. In December, Johnson had told the House of Commons: “All guidance was followed completely in No 10.”
“If the prime minister has attended events he knew broke the rules, or was aware of events he knew broke the rules, he should not have advised the House of Commons, on several occasions, that as far as he was aware, no rules were broken there,” Wright wrote to his constituents. “Doing so in those circumstances would be misleading the House and must in my view lead to his resignation or removal from office.”

@AdamRyan

Pestons article is funny actually www.itv.com/news/2022-02-15/what-is-the-pms-defence-to-the-charge-he-attended-illegal-parties

I am told that the relevant test - or at least so his lawyers believe - is whether he went back to "proper" work immediately after drinking a glass of wine in the Downing Street garden or being ambushed by birthday cake in the cabinet office, or saying goodbye to a colleague in a haze of prosecco or singing along to Abba in the study of his Downing Street flat.

Sounds like his lawyers were reading some of the earlier threads.
"Its not a party if you are sober enough to send an email afterwards....."

What planet are his lawyers on? Where was there anything in the rules saying you could socialise as much as you like provided you went back to "proper" work afterwards?

He also needs to think about whether it's really sensible to argue that there were irrational loopholes like that. If the next variant is more serious and they need to introduce lockdown again, does he really want everyone merrily disregarding the rules because "it's OK if I spread the virus so long as I go back to work afterwards"?

I think that Jeremy Wright QC has it in a nutshell.
However I do think MPS waiting for Sue Gray's 'crucial' details and allowing the ludicrous argument he attended a party for 25 minutes before he realised it wasn't a works do still won't fly with the public even if he isn't fined. Its the whole spirit of the law v the letter of the law thing.
If he weasels out the backlash will be worse. Its back to the whole no one wants to be made a fool of.

But Johnson has already been caught lying to Parliament and his answer is "So what?"

@DePfeffoff

He also needs to think about whether it's really sensible to argue that there were irrational loopholes like that. If the next variant is more serious and they need to introduce lockdown again, does he really want everyone merrily disregarding the rules because "it's OK if I spread the virus so long as I go back to work afterwards"?

I don't think that will cross his mind. If it did, He would not care. Remember the "let the bodies pile high" comment? He denies he said it, but we all know he did.

He hasn’t thought that far ahead. Any further lockdown would have to be completely voluntary because he’s lost the moral authority to enforce it. I think he just banked on nobody finding out and was arrogant enough to piss off the person who knew where the bodies were buried without thinking of the consequences.

He’s now relying on the Met being sufficiently craven not to issue FPNs and/or his lawyers to twist the law to exonerate him. He looks completely pathetic now, clinging on long past the point that any normal person would have recognised that time’s up. His authority has gone.

I have noticed that although Johnson is going to declare the end of restrictions soon, in real life a lot of people are still being more cautious - they know the pandemic isn't over yet so are still limiting their activities or wearing masks when they go out.

Paul Brand
The Liaison Unit in the cabinet office has also asked the Met to confirm that it will not publish the 300 photos it has received of alleged parties on concluding its investigations, just like it won’t name those who receive a fine.

Where the heck did the 300 photos come from?

I wonder if DC is biding his time, waiting for the FPNs to be handed out (or not) before dropping something else into the shitstorm.

@Peregrina

But Johnson has already been caught lying to Parliament and his answer is "So what?"

Presumably what the MP is actually saying is that he will final grow a spine and write his letter to the 1922 after the report is published.

Although I wouldn't bet on him remembering by that point.

@DuncinToffee

Paul Brand The Liaison Unit in the cabinet office has also asked the Met to confirm that it will not publish the 300 photos it has received of alleged parties on concluding its investigations, just like it won’t name those who receive a fine.

MPs and civil servants safety I would imagine.

And who would take photos from working events

I think some were taken by the Governments official photographer paid for by tax payers.

@Blossomtoes

He hasn’t thought that far ahead. Any further lockdown would have to be completely voluntary because he’s lost the moral authority to enforce it. I think he just banked on nobody finding out and was arrogant enough to piss off the person who knew where the bodies were buried without thinking of the consequences.

He’s now relying on the Met being sufficiently craven not to issue FPNs and/or his lawyers to twist the law to exonerate him. He looks completely pathetic now, clinging on long past the point that any normal person would have recognised that time’s up. His authority has gone.

Much like the very necessary restrictions over Christmas that many people introduced on themselves on the advice of the scientists. And yet there are still posters on her trumpeting how wonderful Boris was to not introduce restrictions at Christmas, entirely ignoring what very many people actually did.

Where the heck did the 300 photos come from?

A lot of opportunities for them to be leaked then.

@DuncinToffee

And who would take photos from working events

I think some were taken by the Governments official photographer paid for by tax payers.

Does the official photographer take a photograph every time Big Baby does some work? It must be dull in all the gaps between the work.

Does the official photographer take a photograph every time Big Baby does some work?

Only when he dresses up

@DuncinToffee

Does the official photographer take a photograph every time Big Baby does some work?

Only when he dresses up

Does Big Baby only work when he dresses up?

MPs and civil servants safety I would imagine

Remember when Priti Patel urged us all to report, name and shame offenders?

@DuncinToffee

MPs and civil servants safety I would imagine

Remember when Priti Patel urged us all to report, name and shame offenders?

I try very hard not to remember anything Priti Patel says.

Yes I've noticed the "reasonably" a lot. I think that's where Johnson's lawyers will try and argue "we were in a pandemic - it's reasonable to meet face to face".
Honestly. Why bother introducing legislation if that's the interpretation. It was clear that meant less face to face, not more.