Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

.

It is hard to argue that the parties were necessary for work and no such thing as a work event existed during lockdown. And let's not forget that Johnson told Parliament that there had been no parties.

It was not an offence to have a 'work event' if the event was not clearly a party (a social event). It was not an offence to have an alcoholic drink while working.

So if Boris was wheeled out by his advisor to thank his staff for their work, this would be OK. However, if that event then degenerated into a social event, those attending it would have been breaking the rules.

The decision of the police in relation to Starmer's beer drinking 'break' is quite helpful as a precedent in this regard.

I do not recall BJ saying there were no parties, but he did say he had 'been advised that no rules were broken'.

Clearly, 'parties', which fall under 'social events', were unlawful. But what still needs to be proved is that these gatherings were, in fact, parties. We will no soon enough what these events actually were.

As for the 'Abba music blaring from his flat' - who was there? We know Boris and Carrie were there, but Boris says he was working in another room.

There are too many questions that need to be answered, but it hasn't stopped the Boris haters to side with Cummings and believe implicitly the bile he is projecting, projectile-like, despite not giving him the time of day over his claim that he was 'testing his eyesight' while in Durham.

Believe what you want to, but the truth will be available soon. And I think many will be disappointed by what is revealed.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I thought this an interesting overview of what Johnson's team are doing behind the scenes to influence public opinion.


From The Independent via MSN
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other...?ocid=msedgntp

---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 17:44 ----------


See above.

It is hard to argue that the parties were necessary for work and no such thing as a work event existed during lockdown. And let's not forget that Johnson told Parliament that there had been no parties.

You're right, of course, Andrew. But that mountebank will wriggle and I'd put a shilling on a defence around what I suggested.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It was not an offence to have a 'work event' if the event was not clearly a party (a social event). It was not an offence to have an alcoholic drink while working.

So if Boris was wheeled out by his advisor to thank his staff for their work, this would be OK. However, if that event then degenerated into a social event, those attending it would have been breaking the rules.

The decision of the police in relation to Starmer's beer drinking 'break' is quite helpful as a precedent in this regard.

I do not recall BJ saying there were no parties, but he did say he had 'been advised that no rules were broken'.

Clearly, 'parties', which fall under 'social events', were unlawful. But what still needs to be proved is that these gatherings were, in fact, parties. We will no soon enough what these events actually were.

As for the 'Abba music blaring from his flat' - who was there? We know Boris and Carrie were there, but Boris says he was working in another room.

There are too many questions that need to be answered, but it hasn't stopped the Boris haters to side with Cummings and believe implicitly the bile he is projecting, projectile-like, despite not giving him the time of day over his claim that he was 'testing his eyesight' while in Durham.

Believe what you want to, but the truth will be available soon. And I think many will be disappointed by what is revealed.

It's not a question about being a Cummings lover or a Johnson hater. It's a question about misleading Parliament and the public losing its respect for the law-making process of the United Kingdom.

There's a good reason that we didn't need as strict a lock down as some countries and why our vaccination rates were so high - the public entrusted its elected leaders to make the right decisions. That trust is being severely stretched by Partygate.

[papa smurf]

Booooooooooring who cares.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Booooooooooring who cares.

Well if we dont all disappear in nuclear armageddon, someone might, somewhere.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Booooooooooring who cares.

You obviously care enough to read and post on the thread!

Plenty of threads I don't care about so I don't read and post on them!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It was not an offence to have a 'work event' if the event was not clearly a party (a social event). It was not an offence to have an alcoholic drink while working.

So if Boris was wheeled out by his advisor to thank his staff for their work, this would be OK. However, if that event then degenerated into a social event, those attending it would have been breaking the rules.

The decision of the police in relation to Starmer's beer drinking 'break' is quite helpful as a precedent in this regard.

I do not recall BJ saying there were no parties, but he did say he had 'been advised that no rules were broken'.

Clearly, 'parties', which fall under 'social events', were unlawful. But what still needs to be proved is that these gatherings were, in fact, parties. We will no soon enough what these events actually were.

As for the 'Abba music blaring from his flat' - who was there? We know Boris and Carrie were there, but Boris says he was working in another room.

There are too many questions that need to be answered, but it hasn't stopped the Boris haters to side with Cummings and believe implicitly the bile he is projecting, projectile-like, despite not giving him the time of day over his claim that he was 'testing his eyesight' while in Durham.

Believe what you want to, but the truth will be available soon. And I think many will be disappointed by what is revealed.

Thank you, Nadine Dorries…

"Work event"

as lawyers have repeatedly pointed out, no such thing as a “work event” existed in the lockdown laws. What matters is whether gatherings were “reasonably necessary for work”.

How could party hats, tinsel, birthday cakes, "bring your own booze", be "reasonably necessary for work"?.

Anyway, at the time, the phrase used was "essential", not "reasonably necessary"

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...ade?view=plain

Restrictions on gatherings

7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—

(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household,

(b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes,

(c)to attend a funeral,

(d)where reasonably necessary—

(i)to facilitate a house move,

(ii)to provide care or assistance to a vulnerable person, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006,

(iii)to provide emergency assistance, or

(iv)to participate in legal proceedings or fulfil a legal obligation.

[1andrew1]

We can see from this appproval tracker why Starmer should be quite happy at the moment! https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk...public-1462176

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

We can see from this appproval tracker why Starmer should be quite happy at the moment! https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk...public-1462176

Unfortunately that site doesn't allow ad blockers so I'm not interested in linking to it.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Unfortunately that site doesn't allow ad blockers so I'm not interested in linking to it.

many sites immediately lose my interest for that same reason

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Unfortunately that site doesn't allow ad blockers so I'm not interested in linking to it.

Does not block mine. uBlock Origin.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's not a question about being a Cummings lover or a Johnson hater. It's a question about misleading Parliament and the public losing its respect for the law-making process of the United Kingdom.

There's a good reason that we didn't need as strict a lock down as some countries and why our vaccination rates were so high - the public entrusted its elected leaders to make the right decisions. That trust is being severely stretched by Partygate.

It’s a question of whether or not the allegations are correct in the first place. That’s the point, and it is the point you keep ignoring.

I know that you want the allegations to be correct, but that does not make it so.

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Thank you, Nadine Dorries…

"Work event"



How could party hats, tinsel, birthday cakes, "bring your own booze", be "reasonably necessary for work"?.

Anyway, at the time, the phrase used was "essential", not "reasonably necessary"

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...ade?view=plain

I don’t know how you think any of that is relevant. It was never against the rules to wear party hats and tinsel, eat cake, drink alcohol while working in the office.

I know you really, really want to prove that Boris was culpable, but do you see how flaky your arguments are? Prepare to crash land when the police give their verdict…

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Does not block mine. uBlock Origin.

How so, Pip? The inews link still gives me adblocker grief.
Can you point me to the right UBLOCK setting, please?

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It was never against the rules to wear party hats and tinsel, eat cake, drink alcohol while working in the office.

But again it all depended on the situation as this Government Tweet says:
https://twitter.com/GOVUK/status/133..._uv2qCsZMgh32A

Hi Mick, although there are exemptions for work purposes, you must not have a work Christmas lunch or party, where that is a primarily social activity and is not otherwise permitted by the rules in your tier. You can find more information here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance...ristmas-period Thanks

[1andrew1]

Here's the Boris Johnson approval rating form that i newspaper article.



https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk...public-1462176