2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
- discovolante
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4204
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
It's not him
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
Good point.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
And the ratchet clicks once more -Gfamily wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 12:14 pmThe timings are working out quite well though - as it meant that the 'Christmas Party' could return a "I wasn't there, this was terrible, We shall investigate" response.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:36 amRuth Davidson just stuck the boot in on BBC news.
Amazing that 100 or so people have had this email for 18 months and it's only just now being leaked.
The 'Party on the Terrace' photo then led to a "no, no, this was just our way of working in a socially distanced manner" response
Then this. Busted
and the timing is great so that the outrage from each of the earlier incidents has allowed to subside, before coming back even stronger.
Two Downing Street parties held evening before Prince Philip’s funeral
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
I suppose you can say that in political reality, the facts don't really matter. All that matters is that the electorate's perception of BJ is a lot worse. And BJ trying to get the facts set out makes no difference, whether the enquiry is fair or a whitewash. But let us suppose, for entertainment, the facts matter, and argue the toss.
I would guess Martin Reynolds is toast. He sent the invitations, and obviously he shouldn't have done. He is the PM's Principal Private Secretary. He is a civil servant. It's not a party job. He was apparently well known among those who worked in No 10 and its environs as the Covid-enforcer for that area, among his other PPS duties. And as a civil servant and No 10 Covid-enforcer both in practice and in principle, he should have been perfectly aware of the illegality of the gathering. And if he was instructed to do it - well what then? Could and should he have refused? As a civil servant, the theoretical position is no, he should have refused such an instruction. In reality, it may be difficult for the PM's PPS to refuse to do what the PM instructs. (As an aside, occasionally some PMs in the past have had their own party political person carrying out this role, or more accurately duplicating it, under the title "No 10 Chief of Staff". Perhaps someone more pliant to their will. But not BJ.)
The big question is, or at least BJ might like us think it's a big question, is did the PM did instruct his PPS to send the invitations? I think it makes a difference. Could the PPS really have done this off his own bat? Or is there anyone else who could have instructed him to do it, if it was under instruction but not from BJ? There is some indication that the PPS has some considerable independence of action and practical power. Cummings said so, and if he was being nasty to BJ, as he usually is these days, he would have said the opposite. So I don't immediately disbelieve him. But it does seem a very strange thing for a civil servant, who it seems was the Covid-enforcer at No 10 both in principle and practice, to do something so obviously inconsistent with Covid arrangements. But suppose he was instructed by BJ, and felt he had in practice to obey. I couldn't possibly suggest that they might try to buy him off with a nice ambassadorship to say to Ms Grey that he takes full responsibility for it, when in fact he was instructed. He was previously Ambassador to Libya, and Deputy High Commissioner to South Africa, a propos of nothing.
Let us hypothesize that this event is entirely the idea of Martin Reynolds, who sent the invites off his own bat. We criticise BJ for attending it - however briefly - because it was obviously illegal. But what about all the other people, who apparently are all highly intelligent No 10 workers and the like. Surely it would be equally obvious to all of them it was obviously illegal? So why did so many people turned up? Could they possibly have thought to themselves, if Martin Reynolds himself is inviting us, he the No 10 Covid enforcer, it can't possibly be illegal? Could BJ himself have thought along those lines?
Or is the reality that an "invitation" from Martin Reynolds is really an instruction from the PM?
I would guess Martin Reynolds is toast. He sent the invitations, and obviously he shouldn't have done. He is the PM's Principal Private Secretary. He is a civil servant. It's not a party job. He was apparently well known among those who worked in No 10 and its environs as the Covid-enforcer for that area, among his other PPS duties. And as a civil servant and No 10 Covid-enforcer both in practice and in principle, he should have been perfectly aware of the illegality of the gathering. And if he was instructed to do it - well what then? Could and should he have refused? As a civil servant, the theoretical position is no, he should have refused such an instruction. In reality, it may be difficult for the PM's PPS to refuse to do what the PM instructs. (As an aside, occasionally some PMs in the past have had their own party political person carrying out this role, or more accurately duplicating it, under the title "No 10 Chief of Staff". Perhaps someone more pliant to their will. But not BJ.)
The big question is, or at least BJ might like us think it's a big question, is did the PM did instruct his PPS to send the invitations? I think it makes a difference. Could the PPS really have done this off his own bat? Or is there anyone else who could have instructed him to do it, if it was under instruction but not from BJ? There is some indication that the PPS has some considerable independence of action and practical power. Cummings said so, and if he was being nasty to BJ, as he usually is these days, he would have said the opposite. So I don't immediately disbelieve him. But it does seem a very strange thing for a civil servant, who it seems was the Covid-enforcer at No 10 both in principle and practice, to do something so obviously inconsistent with Covid arrangements. But suppose he was instructed by BJ, and felt he had in practice to obey. I couldn't possibly suggest that they might try to buy him off with a nice ambassadorship to say to Ms Grey that he takes full responsibility for it, when in fact he was instructed. He was previously Ambassador to Libya, and Deputy High Commissioner to South Africa, a propos of nothing.
Let us hypothesize that this event is entirely the idea of Martin Reynolds, who sent the invites off his own bat. We criticise BJ for attending it - however briefly - because it was obviously illegal. But what about all the other people, who apparently are all highly intelligent No 10 workers and the like. Surely it would be equally obvious to all of them it was obviously illegal? So why did so many people turned up? Could they possibly have thought to themselves, if Martin Reynolds himself is inviting us, he the No 10 Covid enforcer, it can't possibly be illegal? Could BJ himself have thought along those lines?
Or is the reality that an "invitation" from Martin Reynolds is really an instruction from the PM?
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
How does security work at Number 10? X-ray machines? How can you wheel a heavy suitcase inside without the police searching it?
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
- El Pollo Diablo
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
- Location: FBPE
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
Apparently the PM wasn't in at the time, so maybe they just let anyone wander in when that's the case.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
I'm sure it would have been searched.
But the people on the x-ray machines may well have been private security rather than police officers. If so its not their role to enforce Covid regulations.
That said I'd be amazed if the police guarding the building didn't know about the parties. But to go back a few pages on this thread, whether or not the parties were actually illegal is a complex issue as Downing Street may have had an exemption. So if it was not obvious that a crime was being committed, they may have decided not to arrest anyone.
- Stranger Mouse
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2699
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
Looks like no exemption https://twitter.com/adamwagner1/status/ ... 41575?s=21Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:50 amI'm sure it would have been searched.
But the people on the x-ray machines may well have been private security rather than police officers. If so its not their role to enforce Covid regulations.
That said I'd be amazed if the police guarding the building didn't know about the parties. But to go back a few pages on this thread, whether or not the parties were actually illegal is a complex issue as Downing Street may have had an exemption. So if it was not obvious that a crime was being committed, they may have decided not to arrest anyone.
I’ve decided I should be on the pardon list if that’s still in the works
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
"Apologising to the Queen" isn't a conventional political tactic.
It's not up there with "cutting taxes before the election" or "appeal to patriotism".
But Johnson has always been an unconventional leader. Maybe his moron voters will love it. After all, it's a sign that it was a hell of a good party if you have to apologise to the f.cking Queen afterwards. Respect.
It's not up there with "cutting taxes before the election" or "appeal to patriotism".
But Johnson has always been an unconventional leader. Maybe his moron voters will love it. After all, it's a sign that it was a hell of a good party if you have to apologise to the f.cking Queen afterwards. Respect.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
Ah, looking at the detail, they've not apologised for the party, they've apologised for not playing the National Anthem at the end of the party.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
They've apologised for not inviting Prince Andrew, even though they knew he'd have enjoyed the strippers.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
The remarkable thing is that this is the second time they've had to apologize to the Queen. The last time was after the Supreme Court ruled on the proroguing Parliament. Or maybe there were others?lpm wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:25 pm"Apologising to the Queen" isn't a conventional political tactic.
It's not up there with "cutting taxes before the election" or "appeal to patriotism".
But Johnson has always been an unconventional leader. Maybe his moron voters will love it. After all, it's a sign that it was a hell of a good party if you have to apologise to the f.cking Queen afterwards. Respect.
- El Pollo Diablo
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
- Location: FBPE
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
Johnson's been to see the Queen loads of times, so he must've shagged at least a few women in her retinue by now
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
Thing is, we all know it was a slightly awkward work party. Like a works Christmas party, but without the end-of-term/year feeling. Hell of a thing to waste your "Apologize to the Queen for a party" Community Chest card on.
Last edited by dyqik on Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Brightonian
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:16 pm
- Location: Usually UK, often France and Ireland
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
Apparently bags don't get searched: https://twitter.com/Sean_Kemp/status/14 ... 8879930373Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:50 amI'm sure it would have been searched.
But the people on the x-ray machines may well have been private security rather than police officers. If so its not their role to enforce Covid regulations.
That said I'd be amazed if the police guarding the building didn't know about the parties. But to go back a few pages on this thread, whether or not the parties were actually illegal is a complex issue as Downing Street may have had an exemption. So if it was not obvious that a crime was being committed, they may have decided not to arrest anyone.
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
Oh ok. That’s a surprising lack of security.Brightonian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:42 pmApparently bags don't get searched: https://twitter.com/Sean_Kemp/status/14 ... 8879930373Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:50 amI'm sure it would have been searched.
But the people on the x-ray machines may well have been private security rather than police officers. If so its not their role to enforce Covid regulations.
That said I'd be amazed if the police guarding the building didn't know about the parties. But to go back a few pages on this thread, whether or not the parties were actually illegal is a complex issue as Downing Street may have had an exemption. So if it was not obvious that a crime was being committed, they may have decided not to arrest anyone.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
Out of all of us, I bet Opti is the only one who's ever had to apologise to the Queen after a party. He'd want to do the right thing. Go round the next day with some brownies to make amends.
I've never needed to apologise for a party. Not even to my Dad. Though he once apologised to me.
I've never needed to apologise for a party. Not even to my Dad. Though he once apologised to me.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
If someone has security clearance, not really.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:45 pmOh ok. That’s a surprising lack of security.Brightonian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:42 pmApparently bags don't get searched: https://twitter.com/Sean_Kemp/status/14 ... 8879930373
In addition, with people coming and going from far afield, arriving with a suitcase would be fairly normal where they'll be staying in a hotel afterwards.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
It was terribly embarrassing. I thought it best to offer a token of apology.lpm wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:57 pmOut of all of us, I bet Opti is the only one who's ever had to apologise to the Queen after a party. He'd want to do the right thing. Go round the next day with some brownies to make amends.
I've never needed to apologise for a party. Not even to my Dad. Though he once apologised to me.
Time for a big fat one.
- Stranger Mouse
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2699
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
So police don’t search bags or suitcases but threaten the plebs they will search their shopping trolley. Or maybe by trolley they meant Boris Johnson.Brightonian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:42 pmApparently bags don't get searched: https://twitter.com/Sean_Kemp/status/14 ... 8879930373Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:50 amI'm sure it would have been searched.
But the people on the x-ray machines may well have been private security rather than police officers. If so its not their role to enforce Covid regulations.
That said I'd be amazed if the police guarding the building didn't know about the parties. But to go back a few pages on this thread, whether or not the parties were actually illegal is a complex issue as Downing Street may have had an exemption. So if it was not obvious that a crime was being committed, they may have decided not to arrest anyone.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... s-11971269
I’ve decided I should be on the pardon list if that’s still in the works
-
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1534
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:22 pm
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
They have nowWoodchopper wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:55 amNot that song, but this is is good: https://twitter.com/CorbettAndy/status/ ... 80800?s=20Woodchopper wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:16 pmIf someone hasn't done an updated Johnson themed version of this I'll be very disappointed in the Interwebs.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
That's brilliant.
- Trinucleus
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:45 pm
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
It is immaculate timing. My guess is Dominic Cummings has a file of embarrassing emails and a scheduleGfamily wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:04 amAnd the ratchet clicks once more -Gfamily wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 12:14 pmThe timings are working out quite well though - as it meant that the 'Christmas Party' could return a "I wasn't there, this was terrible, We shall investigate" response.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:36 amRuth Davidson just stuck the boot in on BBC news.
Amazing that 100 or so people have had this email for 18 months and it's only just now being leaked.
The 'Party on the Terrace' photo then led to a "no, no, this was just our way of working in a socially distanced manner" response
Then this. Busted
and the timing is great so that the outrage from each of the earlier incidents has allowed to subside, before coming back even stronger.
Two Downing Street parties held evening before Prince Philip’s funeral
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
Also it’s quite notable that all different media companies are getting in on the act, I wonder if the BBC will get one? Shall we take bets on which paper/channel will break the next story?Trinucleus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:02 pmIt is immaculate timing. My guess is Dominic Cummings has a file of embarrassing emails and a scheduleGfamily wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:04 amAnd the ratchet clicks once more -Gfamily wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 12:14 pm
The timings are working out quite well though - as it meant that the 'Christmas Party' could return a "I wasn't there, this was terrible, We shall investigate" response.
The 'Party on the Terrace' photo then led to a "no, no, this was just our way of working in a socially distanced manner" response
Then this. Busted
and the timing is great so that the outrage from each of the earlier incidents has allowed to subside, before coming back even stronger.
Two Downing Street parties held evening before Prince Philip’s funeral
Have Sky News had one yet?
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
- Stranger Mouse
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2699
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
Another apology. Quick two tweet thread with details https://twitter.com/adamwagner1/status/ ... 26082?s=21
I’ve decided I should be on the pardon list if that’s still in the works