Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Surely Boris Has To Go Now?
Who is sticking up for Boris now? None of the papers as far as I can see.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by diddlydo. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// Boris is a decent human being. He makes mistakes and misjudgments, but he's been presented with an unprecedented task and he's worked damned hard. //
I'm sure he's not the only one who's worked "damned hard" through the pandemic, but he's certainly the only one who was responsible for setting strict, if necessary, rules, and then breaking them. It was clear that the concept of having parties -- or even a small drinks session -- at work was prohibited through the lockdown. This message was enforced, for example, throughout the wider Civil Service beyond Whitehall.
I don't, as it happens, think that he should leave office because of the parties. I do, however, seriously question his judgement in failing to realise that the way to make this whole thing a non-issue was to be upfront about it from the start.
I'm sure he's not the only one who's worked "damned hard" through the pandemic, but he's certainly the only one who was responsible for setting strict, if necessary, rules, and then breaking them. It was clear that the concept of having parties -- or even a small drinks session -- at work was prohibited through the lockdown. This message was enforced, for example, throughout the wider Civil Service beyond Whitehall.
I don't, as it happens, think that he should leave office because of the parties. I do, however, seriously question his judgement in failing to realise that the way to make this whole thing a non-issue was to be upfront about it from the start.
naomi24
Boris is a decent human being. He makes mistakes and misjudgments, but he's been presented with an unprecedented task and he's worked damned hard. In his situation if I was asked about illegal parties at Downing Street I too would deny them because I don’t consider work colleagues having a glass of wine together at work to be illegal at all.
———
You do notice the massive flaw in your argument ?
Even you must see that ?
By the very legislation that Boris introduced they WERE illegal so denying them is lying
and he broke all his own rules
You do understand that at least ?
I guess in your world he worked so damn hard that he just had to have a beer or three whilst regularly surrounded by colleagues
That the majority of the public were not doing and dare not
Yeah
What a decent human being eh ? Lol
Boris is a decent human being. He makes mistakes and misjudgments, but he's been presented with an unprecedented task and he's worked damned hard. In his situation if I was asked about illegal parties at Downing Street I too would deny them because I don’t consider work colleagues having a glass of wine together at work to be illegal at all.
———
You do notice the massive flaw in your argument ?
Even you must see that ?
By the very legislation that Boris introduced they WERE illegal so denying them is lying
and he broke all his own rules
You do understand that at least ?
I guess in your world he worked so damn hard that he just had to have a beer or three whilst regularly surrounded by colleagues
That the majority of the public were not doing and dare not
Yeah
What a decent human being eh ? Lol
\\ I don't think anyone has a problem with them doing their work.//
I should hope not, these people were doing what they were asked and that was to carry on working. The example I gave previously was the bosses of such companies gave a small party on Fridays to thank their workers for the efforts they made, in spite of added difficulties, in getting to work. Aren't there extenuating circumstances in these cases?
I should hope not, these people were doing what they were asked and that was to carry on working. The example I gave previously was the bosses of such companies gave a small party on Fridays to thank their workers for the efforts they made, in spite of added difficulties, in getting to work. Aren't there extenuating circumstances in these cases?
Trouble is Johnson can’t use that defence because he originally denied any of it happened.
The ones he’s known to have attended he now has to claim weren’t parties or he’d be admitting lying to parliament.
The difficulty with a few of them is they’ll probably turn out undeniably to have been parties and then, if it’s proved he knew about them or was there, he’s had it
The ones he’s known to have attended he now has to claim weren’t parties or he’d be admitting lying to parliament.
The difficulty with a few of them is they’ll probably turn out undeniably to have been parties and then, if it’s proved he knew about them or was there, he’s had it
//I think you're right, archibaldy. In fact I don't think anyone has a problem with them at all - just with Boris.//
I do. I have a problem with all of those who framed and enacted laws which they flagrantly defied themselves. You suggest they could not avoid mixing for work purposes, naomi. But that's exactly what employees of other businesses were told to do. The government has access to all the technology required to work remotely. There was no need for the vast majority of their gatherings to have taken place at all. However, accepting that there was (solely for the purpose of this debate) those gatherings should have been restricted to the barest minimum required to get the work done. But they were not.
//In his situation if I was asked about illegal parties at Downing Street I too would deny them because I don’t consider work colleagues having a glass of wine together at work to be illegal at all.//
It shouldn't be illegal, but it was. Ms Gray remarks:
"Some behaviour at the gatherings is difficult to justify given the public was being asked to accept far-reaching restrictions on their lives."
But more than that, most large commercial organisations banned the consumption of alcohol on company premises long ago - probably thirty years or more for most of them. Yet we see Ms Gray report this:
"The excessive consumption of alcohol is not appropriate in a professional workplace at any time"
And nor it is. But here we see politicians and their lackies in the highest offices in government, treating these draconian restrictions on civil liberties as a joke and something which certainly doesn't apply to them.
And now we move to the police. The Met was not interested in these matters as they occurred. But now they have launched investigations into dozens of breaches, some of which happened almost two years ago, and this has thwarted the publication of Ms Gray's full report. Why this should be is anybody's guess. There will be no trials of any of any these allegations and even if there were they would be held in the Magistrates' Court, so no question of a jury being swayed by adverse comments in her report. And the Met's interest has suddenly been ignited. Why? The whole debacle is a disgrace and the buck stops at the top.
I do. I have a problem with all of those who framed and enacted laws which they flagrantly defied themselves. You suggest they could not avoid mixing for work purposes, naomi. But that's exactly what employees of other businesses were told to do. The government has access to all the technology required to work remotely. There was no need for the vast majority of their gatherings to have taken place at all. However, accepting that there was (solely for the purpose of this debate) those gatherings should have been restricted to the barest minimum required to get the work done. But they were not.
//In his situation if I was asked about illegal parties at Downing Street I too would deny them because I don’t consider work colleagues having a glass of wine together at work to be illegal at all.//
It shouldn't be illegal, but it was. Ms Gray remarks:
"Some behaviour at the gatherings is difficult to justify given the public was being asked to accept far-reaching restrictions on their lives."
But more than that, most large commercial organisations banned the consumption of alcohol on company premises long ago - probably thirty years or more for most of them. Yet we see Ms Gray report this:
"The excessive consumption of alcohol is not appropriate in a professional workplace at any time"
And nor it is. But here we see politicians and their lackies in the highest offices in government, treating these draconian restrictions on civil liberties as a joke and something which certainly doesn't apply to them.
And now we move to the police. The Met was not interested in these matters as they occurred. But now they have launched investigations into dozens of breaches, some of which happened almost two years ago, and this has thwarted the publication of Ms Gray's full report. Why this should be is anybody's guess. There will be no trials of any of any these allegations and even if there were they would be held in the Magistrates' Court, so no question of a jury being swayed by adverse comments in her report. And the Met's interest has suddenly been ignited. Why? The whole debacle is a disgrace and the buck stops at the top.
Where I worked alcohol was not only banned in the workplace but if Security decided to stop and search your car either entering the car park or leaving it and found some, even in the boot wrapped and ready to take home, they reported it and written reprimand was issued.
Any found in an open container and ready to drink resulted in dismissal.
Needless to say I wasn't working at No. 10.
Any found in an open container and ready to drink resulted in dismissal.
Needless to say I wasn't working at No. 10.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.