BoJo referred to police by the Cabinet Office. Partygate II?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Dave42

he was fined because of the gathering OB man why do you think he in trouble again he admitted to more gatherings in his diary nothing to do with the cake

They were gathering for a scheduled meeting, remember?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

They were gathering for a scheduled meeting, remember?

Johnson disagrees with you…

Discussing his lockdown-breaking birthday party, Mr Johnson said "in all frankness at that time it did not occur to me that this might have been a breach of the rules".

After the fine, however, he "now humbly accepts" he did breach COVID-19 laws.

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-joh...%20June%202020.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

They were gathering for a scheduled meeting, remember?

May I commend the Sue Gray Report to you Old Boy?
https://assets.publishing.service.go...GATHERINGS.pdf

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

They were gathering for a scheduled meeting, remember?

So the Johnson's interior decorator was formally invited and involved in meetings about running the country?

Hang on, with hindsight, she might have been an imprtant cog in the UK decision making machine all along and without her vital input the country might be even further up the creek than we are now.

I think we've all been a bit harsh on BJ as he was only doing the best for the country with the very best people available.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

So the Johnson's interior decorator was formally invited and involved in meetings about running the country?

Hang on, with hindsight, she might have been an imprtant cog in the UK decision making machine all along and without her vital input the country might be even further up the creek than we are now.

I think we've all been a bit harsh on BJ as he was only doing the best for the country with the very best people available.

But it was the cake what clinched it.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But it was the cake what clinched it.

He probably should have been fined for the other parties too.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...y-get-one-fine

[1andrew1]

BoJo and the Government are now launching a legal challenge to prevent the Cabinet Office from releasing his WhatsApp messages and diaries to the Covid Enquiry.
https://news.sky.com/story/legal-bat...sages-12892827

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

He probably should have been fined for the other parties too.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...y-get-one-fine

The police were satisfied that a leaving presentation was a legitimate work activity.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The police were satisfied that a leaving presentation was a legitimate work activity.

Agreed. The others weren't all leaving-dos so I think you've got a legitimate question in asking why he wasn't fined for the rest.

On another note

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It’s also true that Kier attended a function with curry and alcohol at a party member’s house. Police reaction? Move on, nothing to see here….

Repeating a falsehood does not make it correct. This was post-work food and drinks at a meeting venue. The police reaction was not "nothing to see here" but "we've launched an investigation".

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4...97dcd51b4fb028

The Cabinet Office is resolute in its view that documents and correspondence covering more than two years do not need to be released in full, claiming that parts of discussions are “unambiguously irrelevant” to the inquiry.

https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/wp...ry-Notice-.pdf

The Cabinet Office was sent a copy of the Chair's Ruling on its section 21(4) application on the day that the Ruling was given, Monday 22 May 2023.

The Ruling set 4pm on Tuesday 30 May 2023 as the new deadline for compliance with the section 21 Notice.

2. Shortly after close of business on Friday 26 May, the Inquiry received correspondence from the Government Legal Department on behalf of the Cabinet Office, raising two matters for the first time.

3. First, an extension was requested for compliance with the Ruling until Monday 5 June

2023. Second, the Inquiry was informed that the Cabinet Office does not have in its possession either Mr Johnson's WhatsApp messages or Mr Johnson's notebooks, as sought in the original section 21 Notice.

4. The Chair rejected the request for an extension of time to 5 June 2023, but granted a short extension to 4pm on Thursday 1 June 2023. The section 21 Notice has been varied accordingly.

Apparently, after stating that documents and correspondence are "unambiguously irrelevant", they also state they don’t have the documents and correspondence they refer to - how do they know they are "unambiguously irrelevant", then?

Also, Baroness Hallett requires a signed statement verified by oath to back up the claim that the Cabinet Office does not have copies of Boris Johnson’s WhatsApps or diaries - and a detailed chronology setting out if it had copies and any correspondence with Johnson about it.

About to get very interesting….

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Agreed. The others weren't all leaving-dos so I think you've got a legitimate question in asking why he wasn't fined for the rest.

On another note

Repeating a falsehood does not make it correct. This was post-work food and drinks at a meeting venue. The police reaction was not "nothing to see here" but "we've launched an investigation".

I know what it was, but it was still a social event that went on the the wee small hours, and some were worse for wear when they departed. There was no falsehood in my post.

I don’t see how any of you can view that as not being worse than Boris receiving a cake just as he was assembling for a pre-planned meeting.

But there you go…

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I know what it was, but it was still a social event that went on the the wee small hours, and some were worse for wear when they departed. There was no falsehood in my post.

I don’t see how any of you can view that as not being worse than Boris receiving a cake just as he was assembling for a pre-planned meeting.

But there you go…

I suppose you could just sum it up as your guy broke the law and the other guy didn't, but there you go....

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I know what it was, but it was still a social event that went on the the wee small hours, and some were worse for wear when they departed. There was no falsehood in my post.

I don’t see how any of you can view that as not being worse than Boris receiving a cake just as he was assembling for a pre-planned meeting.

But there you go…

It was a falsehood to state the police did nothing about Starmer's meal and drinks. You knew that they investigated and cleared him as being inline with Covid guidance at the time.

It was false to state it was a party at a friend's house. It was held at the Miners Hall where they had worked during the day.

Stating it to be a social event is a loose definition as all events involving people are social! The question is whether it was a work or non-work event. It was found by the police to be a work one.

I doubt your quip about it going onto the wee small hours is anything more than wishful thinking.

It's not what we think about BoJo's birthday party, it's what the police think. they found it was not a work event.

BoJo has moved on. I encourage you to join him.

---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Apparently, after stating that documents and correspondence are "unambiguously irrelevant", they also state they don’t have the documents and correspondence they refer to - how do they know they are "unambiguously irrelevant", then?

Also, Baroness Hallett requires a signed statement verified by oath to back up the claim that the Cabinet Office does not have copies of Boris Johnson’s WhatsApps or diaries - and a detailed chronology setting out if it had copies and any correspondence with Johnson about it.

About to get very interesting….

Interesting. On what basis did they decide that the WhatsApp messages and diaries were unambiguously irrelevent? Did they just take Johnson's word for that?

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4...97dcd51b4fb028



https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/wp...ry-Notice-.pdf




Apparently, after stating that documents and correspondence are "unambiguously irrelevant", they also state they don’t have the documents and correspondence they refer to - how do they know they are "unambiguously irrelevant", then?

Also, Baroness Hallett requires a signed statement verified by oath to back up the claim that the Cabinet Office does not have copies of Boris Johnson’s WhatsApps or diaries - and a detailed chronology setting out if it had copies and any correspondence with Johnson about it.

About to get very interesting….

So what they're saying is WhatsApps, texts, emails etc that were not directly related to Covid are irrelevant so should remain private, while they feel it's OK to expect a rape victim to allow the police etc to trawl through their entire digital life to check if they were asking to be raped? Shocking, absolutely shocking and anyone who supports this lot should be ashamed.

Maybe don't conduct Government business on private WhatsApp accounts?