Reply to: Boris Johnson tests positive for Covid

[WTFH]

I just heard

Must be Carrie.

You don't test babies or toddlers unless you have to.

Could be his father, whatever country he's currently flying to/from without isolating.
Could be his sister, brother, or one of his ex-wives or children over 11, e.g.
Lara (28?), Milo (26?), Cassie (24?), Theo (22?), Stephanie (12?)

There could be others.

[vetran]

I just heard

Must be Carrie.

You don't test babies or toddlers unless you have to.

Senior, Sister ?

It doesn't have to be his household. He is known to mix with his relatives.

[SueEllen]

Close. A member of his family (could be one of many):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59979118

...allegedly

I just heard

Must be Carrie.

You don't test babies or toddlers unless you have to.

[WTFH]

Close. A member of his family (could be one of many):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59979118

...allegedly

[AtW]

He's broken guidelines, not laws.

Ah that's fine then, nothing to see here, move along.

[d000hg]

He's broken guidelines, not laws.

That seems very likely, however it probably doesn't make much difference since we were 'told' to follow guidance not asked in all those #10 briefings, and this is politics.

I would imagine many of us here have done things along these lines, albeit probably with a handful of people rather than 30-100. But you just can't be so dumb as a government as to do it so openly. If Boris and Hancock had a couple of drinks after work discussing matters of the day then realistically, fine. But don't invite 100 people "because they've been working so hard" when everyone else's only interaction with each other is when they stood on their doorsteps banging pans for the NHS

[malvolio]

He lives at 11 doesn't he? So not his private address - his office address.

No, Number 10 is his official residence. The flat is above No 11 but not part of it (If you've ever been inside Downing Street, it' a total maze spread over about five separate buildings, so boundaries are a little moot).

More to the point, it is not a public space either (none of Downing Street is) so the regulations (not law!) everyone is banging on about probably don't apply anyway. He's broken guidelines, not laws.

[AtW]

He'll be just fine

[jamesbrown]

Since he has admitted attending, I can't see what else he can say if he isn't willing to resign.

Oh, a catch-22 for sure. He could either provide a fulsome apology, which might admit too much that could eventually scupper him, or he could provide a weak apology (he went for that option), which will not stem the tide of complaints from constituents to Tory MPs or push this off the front pages, which will eventually scupper him. At this point, he's done for, but I think he made things a little bit worse by couching the language so badly - it was sorry, not sorry.

[DaveB]

He lives at 11 doesn't he? So not his private address - his office address.

It's effectively all one building behind the doors and the gardens are shared.

Doesn't alter the fact that this was a very carefully worded statement written for him by lawyers with the express intent of limiting his personal liability in any way possible.

[d000hg]

I think he's actually made it worse, if that were possible.

To borrow these immortal words from twitter: "I believed implicitly that this was a work event."

Since he has admitted attending, I can't see what else he can say if he isn't willing to resign.

In the interest of balance, Keir's attempt to label this a "boozy party" is quite obviously a tactic. The photos I saw showed a few tables of 3-4 people dotted about, having a glass of wine. If you think of a "boozy party" involving Tories you picture roast pigs, white powder and someone getting buggered in the bushes. It's not like it ended with them doing the conga with their trousers round their ankles... about the ****est party I've ever seen

None of this matters though, it's clearly utterly against the spirit of the rules regardless if you can wheedle your way out on a technicality. Nobody has a leg to stand on.

[mudskipper]

Professional Lawyers opinion on it.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...570390021.html

He lives at 11 doesn't he? So not his private address - his office address.

[SueEllen]

I seem to remember local jingoists attending VE Day street parties that involved BYOB and mixing with lots of people around the same time...

Last time I checked they didn't live in 10 Downing Street and made the rules that the English voters had to adhere to otherwise the police would tell them to move along or fine them.

[DaveB]

Professional Lawyers opinion on it.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...570390021.html

The Johnson apology was carefully worded and obviously lawyered. He said that he attended because he "believed implicitly that this was a work event", that "with hindsight" he should have sent everyone back inside, and "technically" it could be said to fall within the guidance.

The apology - when read carefully - was to the millions of people who "wouldn’t see it in that way", but because he also said technically it could be said to fall within the guidance he is implicitly saying the millions of people are wrong in their interpretation.
This was only what *he* thought the event was. He "went into the garden to thank groups of staff for 25 minutes [he] believed implicitly this was a work event". So defence is a personal one only and leaves open the possibility the event was something else without him realising

This is very much about his personal liability - he is implicitly denying he knew what the event was, had seen the email or had anything to do with it. Because here's the key point: on the wording of email ("bring your own booze") this couldn't technically have been a work event
Although, he might say that even a boozy party for staff was "reasonably necessary for work" to thank staff for their hard work during the pandemic. I doubt that would hold weight given the govt guidance at the time discouraging workplace gatherings.

Also, how do you believe something implicitly? Is the point that he didn't really understand the rules he had set? Or not particularly engaged with them?

Also, PM has probably been advised that the only possible personal liability would be as an accessory to others' criminal offences (he wasn't outside of his home so not subject to the restriction on movement regulation). So has to say he "implicitly" didn't believe it broke rules

The ultimate point is that at the time if anyone had asked the Prime Minister or Health Minister whether it was lawful to have a social work gathering outdoors for 100 with alcohol and food they would have answered with a very hard "no". This is all ex post facto face saving

It is proper nonsense and doesn't make any sense at all given what the government were telling everyone else to do at the time.
Also, if any photos or video appear and it looks like a party then the whole defence of "I didn't know it was a party" goes out of the window.

The irony of it being the prime minister, not his “Islington lawyer” opponent, excusing his actions on a “technicality“

[TheDude]

I seem to remember local jingoists attending VE Day street parties that involved BYOB and mixing with lots of people around the same time...