How is the Tory government doing?

Sluffy wrote:A question for everyone - is anybody on here actually genuinely angry about these 'parties' at number 10?

Let me be clear my view is that you lead by example and that the leader takes ultimate responsibility - so Johnson should resign.

I'm not angry or fuming though.

I can understand how many of these events happened - it's normal to say a few words at a leaving gathering, or thank staff for their hard work when the occasions occur.  I can understand work meetings being held in the garden during a Covid summer and tea and biscuits being made available.  I can even understand a bottle or two being opened in the office to celebrate someones birthday after work, etc.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if similar things didn't happen in some shape or form in nearly every large office, factory or store in the country over the last two Covid summers.

Yes they shouldn't have and similar to the saying 'Caesar's wife should be above suspicion', Johnson should carry the can for it happening under his own nose - and mainly by his own Spads.

Rules are rules after all - and Number 10 was telling us what the rules were!

I just feel that there is an awful lot of hypocrisy behind this from people who have probably broken a few Covid rules themselves over the last two years.

Johnson should go for many reasons, this being only one of them (I find his lying about them more damning and damaging than the parties themselves) but I can't get worked up over a number of ill judged but mostly understandable reasons for many of these gatherings to have initially occurred.  They shouldn't have happened but I can understand mostly why they did.

I tend to see this being more as a means to an end, in the same way Al Capone was brought down, namely he wasn't jailed for being a murderous killer - which he was - no one could prove that but they could prove he fiddled his tax returns and that's how they got him in the end.

Anybody genuinely angry over people who were working all day legally and the same people sat at the same desks deemed to be acting illegally just one minute later???

I guess if you lost a loved one you might but I'm sure exactly the same things (and worse) were happening daily throughout the country in one form or another.

Number 10's offices should have been beyond reproach - they weren't - but not everything is black or white is it?

i am genuinely angry about this. many people including me and my family have followed every rule during covid. This meant my wife and kids didn't see my in-laws for many many months which was very upsetting for my wife. We both work in the NHS and literally our lives during restrictions has been one long cycle of slogging our guts out at work then home and repeat over and over again.

Meanwhile Boris and his cronies seem to think that because they introduced these restrictions that they don't apply to them. A friend of ours lost her Father during covid and she couldn't even attend his funeral as she was classed as vulnerable. That is the kind of sacrifices many of us have taken just to be constantly slapped in the face by these idiots thinking they are above the law.

Norpig wrote:i am genuinely angry about this. many people including me and my family have followed every rule during covid. This meant my wife and kids didn't see my in-laws for many many months which was very upsetting for my wife. We both work in the NHS and literally our lives during restrictions has been one long cycle of slogging our guts out at work then home and repeat over and over again.

Meanwhile Boris and his cronies seem to think that because they introduced these restrictions that they don't apply to them. A friend of ours lost her Father during covid and she couldn't even attend his funeral as she was classed as vulnerable. That is the kind of sacrifices many of us have taken just to be constantly slapped in the face by these idiots thinking they are above the law.

Thanks for the sincere reply and sorry again to hear that you've had it so rough, as you've been keeping us in touch with all the stuff you've endured from the very start.

I guess what I'm attempting to ask is when does the line get crossed between doing something innocent and insignificant to something that seems to have suddenly turned into a public lynching.

As a manager yourself, if one of your staff were leaving would you not wish to give a few words of best wishes at the end of their last day and perhaps share a glass of something with them and your colleagues present?

Seem that's exactly what one of these incidents was about - if so was it wrong that Number 10 did it but ok for you and anyone else in the country doing similar?

You lost your rag over something 63 said but if your manager said that the hospital had been given a few pizza's as a thank you from the public for what the NHS is doing and you and your staff got told that you should pop down to the canteen and grab yourself a bite, is that really a million miles away from Downing Street laying out some snacks in the garden as a thank you to staff and telling them to get stuck in?

Yes I know they also said bring some booze - which clearly does break the rules - but if it just stopped at the snacks is that really a lynching event as it's made out to be?

I mean it's all the same people who have been working together throughout the day simply gathering to eat instead of work.

If it's ok for you to do it then surely it must be ok for them to do it.  Conversely if it is wrong for them to do such things then it must be wrong for you and others to do such things.

That's what I'm getting at.

At the end of the day they have appeared to have broken the rules and Sue Gray's report will confirm that one way or the other.

I just don't get the anger for the initial things that went on.

To my mind the issue only starts at when the action turns into something completely different such as once the leaving speech, or thank you is over, you have 10 minutes or so to clear away and start to go home and don't turn it into a party with music, dancing and more drinking for the rest of the evening.

So if those things didn't happen then why is it such a massive issue?

Clearly some did turn into parties - but I dare say the same happened at more than a few up and down the country too - so there is an element of hypocrisy from some about all this too.

The bottom line is that it happened and seemingly went beyond (in some or all cases) a level that could be generally acceptable to be within the spirit of the rules. And what makes it damnable is that those doing so were the ones behind telling the rest of us was wrong to be doing ourselves.

I suppose if this what it takes to bring Johnson down then end will justify the means.

Interesting therefore to see what this report will say from Sue Gray then!

Sluffy wrote:

At the end of the day they have appeared to have broken the rules and Sue Gray's report will confirm that one way or the other.

You need Sue Gray's report to confirm whether or not the rules were broken?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

At the end of the day they have appeared to have broken the rules and Sue Gray's report will confirm that one way or the other.

You need Sue Gray's report to confirm whether or not the rules were broken?

Yes.

She's seen the evidence and interviewed the people involved (I expect their interviews have been recorded and no doubt some had their legal representatives present too).

Presumably you've made up your mind without seeing any of the evidence nor interviewing the people involved and based solely what you've read on social media or in the paper.

Sorry, are you suggesting the party didn't happen?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sorry, are you suggesting the party didn't happen?

Something clearly happened, people have apologised and resigned over them but what exactly did happen on all the occasions and did they all break the law?

I don't know that and neither do you.

That's why there is an inquiry on going to find out exactly this.

If you want to prejudge everything and go out lynching folk, that's up to you.

I prefer to hear all the facts first.

No doubt if the findings don't confirm your already predetermined guilty verdict you (and others) will be screaming it is all a government cover up!

I can tell you that 99% of the people I've spoken to down here are seething. And it cuts across the political divide. If Boris wants to gauge the public mood he might like to step out of his bunker.

They've leaked the results of the inquiry in an effort to spin it.

Seems this is similar to what I've been pondering on...

Sluffy wrote:As a manager yourself, if one of your staff were leaving would you not wish to give a few words of best wishes at the end of their last day and perhaps share a glass of something with them and your colleagues present?

Seem that's exactly what one of these incidents was about - if so was it wrong that Number 10 did it but ok for you and anyone else in the country doing similar?

Ex-head of Covid taskforce had lockdown leaving party

We've just learned of another lockdown leaving party in government.

The former head of the civil service Covid taskforce - the team responsible for drawing up Covid restrictions - says she's sorry for holding a leaving party during lockdown in 2020.
Kate Josephs, now chief executive of Sheffield City Council, has tweeted a statement in which she says she had drinks with colleagues on the evening of 17 December.
The event took place in their office at the Cabinet Office to mark her leaving the civil service.
"I am truly sorry that I did this and for the anger that people will feel as a result," she says.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-59983239

I am today making a statement. I am truly sorry. pic.twitter.com/xWByiiKfV3

— Kate Josephs (@katejosephs) January 14, 2022

Sluffy wrote:

Something clearly happened, people have apologised and resigned over them but what exactly did happen on all the occasions and did they all break the law?

I don't know that and neither do you.

That's why there is an inquiry on going to find out exactly this.

If you want to prejudge everything and go out lynching folk, that's up to you.

I prefer to hear all the facts first.

No doubt if the findings don't confirm your already predetermined guilty verdict you (and others) will be screaming it is all a government cover up!

Pre-determined guilty verdict?

Was there a party - yes, we know there was.

Was it legal to have a party at the time - no it wasn't.

Do you need Sue Gray to dispute either of those?

So now Downing St is apologising to the Queen for the lockdown office parties on the eve of Phillip's funeral - have they even spoken since they apologised for lying to the Queen over the attempted prorogation scandal.

But it's not about the parties is it? It's about the constant lying, the constant dodging of questions about it, the ass-covering, the cavalier "one rule for us" approach and the arrogant way they take us for fools.

The parties are just even more evidence that this government and especially this prime minister lie to the nation and can't be trusted. And it must be especially irksome to those who put their trust in them by voting for them - apart from the minority who are still in denial.

They've been helped by their cosy relationship with the right wing media and it's no surprise the Sun didn't report this latest party to be uncovered - despite having a scoop by attending it.

Sluffy wrote:Seems this is similar to what I've been pondering on...

That would be nice wouldn't it. Seeing a colleague off, and wishing him/her well, with a couple of drinks.

It would have been nice for my friend to hold his dying mother's hand as she slipped away. Shame isn't it.

Still, never mind.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Something clearly happened, people have apologised and resigned over them but what exactly did happen on all the occasions and did they all break the law?

I don't know that and neither do you.

That's why there is an inquiry on going to find out exactly this.

If you want to prejudge everything and go out lynching folk, that's up to you.

I prefer to hear all the facts first.

No doubt if the findings don't confirm your already predetermined guilty verdict you (and others) will be screaming it is all a government cover up!

Pre-determined guilty verdict?

Was there a party - yes, we know there was.

Was it legal to have a party at the time - no it wasn't.

Do you need Sue Gray to dispute either of those?

Well why bother holding an inquiry then, finding out the facts and interviewing people who were there to find out what they believed was happening?

Might as well just chuck them all in jail.

If Gray confirms what you believe then job done to your satisfaction.

But what if she finds that things aren't what you believe them to be?

I don't understand people like you - you're all for people's freedoms and rights, yet you're the first to judge people without bothering to hear their side of the story.

Seems you have double standards when it comes to practising what you so vehemently preach!

boltonbonce wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Seems this is similar to what I've been pondering on...

That would be nice wouldn't it. Seeing a colleague off, and wishing him/her well, with a couple of drinks.

It would have been nice for my friend to hold his dying mother's hand as she slipped away. Shame isn't it.

Still, never mind.

Fwiw there was a time when that could so easily have been me in respect to my brother but fortunately he pulled through, so don't try playing the emotional card on me - I've been there.



(Sincerely hope your 'friend' isn't you btw).

Seems the Kate Joseph party is looking more like one of these...

Sluffy wrote:To my mind the issue only starts at when the action turns into something completely different such as once the leaving speech, or thank you is over, you have 10 minutes or so to clear away and start to go home and don't turn it into a party with music, dancing and more drinking for the rest of the evening.

The bottom line is that it happened and seemingly went beyond (in some or all cases) a level that could be generally acceptable to be within the spirit of the rules.  And what makes it damnable is that those doing so were the ones behind telling the rest of us was wrong to be doing ourselves.

17:00
What else do we know about latest party to be investigated?

As with last night's story about the two leaving parties on the eve of Prince Philip's funeral, this latest revelation was first reported by the Telegraph.

The paper says dozens of people attended a “boozy” send off for Kate Josephs, the former head of the team responsible for drawing up Covid restrictions.

The leaving do was held on 17 December 2020 - the same night that Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, held a gathering in his private office - and 24 hours before No 10 staff hosted their own Christmas Party, the newspaper says.

A source told the newspaper that Case was invited to the Josephs event, although the Cabinet Office said “categorically” that he did not attend.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-59983239

Shocking that a senior civil servant at the time did this if true.

Also damning that Case didn't stop it...

Inexcusable if so.

Sluffy wrote:

Well why bother holding an inquiry then, finding out the facts and interviewing people who were there to find out what they believed was happening?

Might as well just chuck them all in jail.

If Gray confirms what you believe then job done to your satisfaction.

But what if she finds that things aren't what you believe them to be?

I don't understand people like you - you're all for people's freedoms and rights, yet you're the first to judge people without bothering to hear their side of the story.

Seems you have double standards when it comes to practising what you so vehemently preach!

The investigation (not an inquiry) is there for the government - and people like you - to fall back on. See what Boris did with the investigation into Priti’s bullying for evidence of that.

The only person with double standards is you, the public broke COVID rules and you lambasted them, the government breaks rules then you weasel out.

Unless you think the party never happened then you consistency would be for you to criticise Boris with the same vigour you did the public.

How many UK citizens believe that Sue Gray will be impartial?

Who employs Sue Gray as a top civil servant? Where exactly does she work?

Why were the Tories so keen to wait for her to investigate rather than let the emails and video evidence speak for themselves, as they clearly do to anyone fair-minded?

Who appointed her to be the investigator?

Why is she on first-name terms with those she is investigating?

Will she gather information for her report by asking those implicated? How many will tell the truth at that point?

Why is the role not conducted by a complete outsider?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Well why bother holding an inquiry then, finding out the facts and interviewing people who were there to find out what they believed was happening?

Might as well just chuck them all in jail.

If Gray confirms what you believe then job done to your satisfaction.

But what if she finds that things aren't what you believe them to be?

I don't understand people like you - you're all for people's freedoms and rights, yet you're the first to judge people without bothering to hear their side of the story.

Seems you have double standards when it comes to practising what you so vehemently preach!

The investigation (not an inquiry) is there for the government - and people like you - to fall back on. See what Boris did with the investigation into Priti’s bullying for evidence of that.

The only person with double standards is you, the public broke COVID rules and you lambasted them, the government breaks rules then you weasel out.

Unless you think the party never happened then you consistency would be for you to criticise Boris with the same vigour you did the public.

If Boris, MP's, civil servants or special advisors broke Covid rules applying at the time then they should be fined and punished like everyone else - I've no problem with that.

I'm more than happy to criticise Boris, Hancock, the Conservative party or anyone else you care to name - even my own daughter - if they have done wrong, then they should receive the same punishment as everyone else - no one, not even myself, is above the law.

However I don't judge anyone without first hearing both sides of the story and listening to all the facts.

Clearly you don't hold such basic ethics as I, and have already decided that people are guilty without hearing from both sides and based entirely from what you've read on social media or in the papers.

Do you really believe all you read on social media and everything you read in the papers?

What's the point in having courts and inquiries when you've made your mind up they are guilty without hearing their defence???

For someone who vehemently claims to be all for equality and fairness you certainly are not treating all fairly and equally if you make up your mind of them being guilty without hearing their explanations of what happened and why first.

Which in my eyes makes you the biggest hypocrite on here - and that takes some doing considering we have one amongst us who tells lies rather than admit he posted that he voted for Brexit!

If Gray's inquiry/investigation* confirms what most of us think did happen then all well and good, if however she finds that not everything is how we think it was then isn't it better that this is found out BEFORE innocent people are (metaphorically) hung for a crime they did not commit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Ellis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case


*Inquiry
noun

An act of asking for information.

Similar:
An official investigation.

Investigation
noun

The action of investigating something or someone; formal or systematic examination or research.

Similar:
A formal inquiry or systematic study.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The investigation (not an inquiry) is there for the government - and people like you - to fall back on. See what Boris did with the investigation into Priti’s bullying for evidence of that.

Thought I'd deal with this separately.

People like me you say?

Well Philip Rutnam is someone like me, he's the former head of the Home Office Civil Service who resigned over Patel's bullying and took the government to an employment tribunal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56281781

Sir Alex Allen is someone else like me, he's the former adviser to the Prime Minister on the Ministerial Code, who resigned when Johnson took it upon himself to reject Allen's inquiry finding that Patel had broken the code on Ministerial behaviour (in other words he found that she was a bully).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55016076

Dave Penman is someone like me, he's the head of the civil service union who said -

"What is the point of the investigation if actually what we're saying is it doesn't matter what evidence has been found, it doesn't matter what the PM's own adviser on the ministerial code says, if it's politically convenient for the PM to ignore it, he will ignore it."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56125796

The members of the civil service union FDA are people like me who took Johnson's decision to 'ignore' the clear bullying that had been proven, to court.

They recently lost but can still appeal.

That's the type of person I am.

And proud of it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-59550792

This is actually quite an informative read as to what Sue Gray is doing.

Downing Street parties: How many wine bottles fit in a suitcase, and other questions

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59959622