Scrutable

It's not him

discovolante wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 10:22 pm It's not him

Good point.

Gfamily wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 12:14 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:36 am Ruth 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 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.

And the ratchet clicks once more -
Two Downing Street parties held evening before Prince Philip’s funeral

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?

How does security work at Number 10? X-ray machines? How can you wheel a heavy suitcase inside without the police searching it?

lpm wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:31 am How does security work at Number 10? X-ray machines? How can you wheel a heavy suitcase inside without the police searching it?

Apparently the PM wasn't in at the time, so maybe they just let anyone wander in when that's the case.

lpm wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:31 am How does security work at Number 10? X-ray machines? How can you wheel a heavy suitcase inside without the police searching it?

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.

Woodchopper wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:50 am

lpm wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:31 am How does security work at Number 10? X-ray machines? How can you wheel a heavy suitcase inside without the police searching it?

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.

Looks like no exemption https://twitter.com/adamwagner1/status/ ... 41575?s=21

"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.

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.

They've apologised for not inviting Prince Andrew, even though they knew he'd have enjoyed the strippers.

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.

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?

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

lpm wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:25 pmAfter 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.

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.

Woodchopper wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:50 am

lpm wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:31 am How does security work at Number 10? X-ray machines? How can you wheel a heavy suitcase inside without the police searching it?

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.

Apparently bags don't get searched: https://twitter.com/Sean_Kemp/status/14 ... 8879930373

Brightonian wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:42 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:50 am

lpm wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:31 am How does security work at Number 10? X-ray machines? How can you wheel a heavy suitcase inside without the police searching it?

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.

Apparently bags don't get searched: https://twitter.com/Sean_Kemp/status/14 ... 8879930373

Oh ok. That’s a surprising lack of security.

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.

Woodchopper wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:45 pm

Brightonian wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:42 pm Apparently bags don't get searched: https://twitter.com/Sean_Kemp/status/14 ... 8879930373

Oh ok. That’s a surprising lack of security.

If someone has security clearance, not really.
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.

lpm wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:57 pm 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.

It was terribly embarrassing. I thought it best to offer a token of apology.

Brightonian wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:42 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:50 am

lpm wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:31 am How does security work at Number 10? X-ray machines? How can you wheel a heavy suitcase inside without the police searching it?

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.

Apparently bags don't get searched: https://twitter.com/Sean_Kemp/status/14 ... 8879930373

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.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... s-11971269

Woodchopper wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:55 am

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:16 pm If someone hasn't done an updated Johnson themed version of this I'll be very disappointed in the Interwebs.

Not that song, but this is is good: https://twitter.com/CorbettAndy/status/ ... 80800?s=20

They have now

FlammableFlower wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:56 pm They have now

That's brilliant.

Gfamily wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:04 am

Gfamily wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 12:14 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:36 am Ruth 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 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.

And the ratchet clicks once more -
Two Downing Street parties held evening before Prince Philip’s funeral

It is immaculate timing. My guess is Dominic Cummings has a file of embarrassing emails and a schedule

Trinucleus wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:02 pm

Gfamily wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:04 am

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.

And the ratchet clicks once more -
Two Downing Street parties held evening before Prince Philip’s funeral

It is immaculate timing. My guess is Dominic Cummings has a file of embarrassing emails and a schedule

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?

Have Sky News had one yet?

Another apology. Quick two tweet thread with details https://twitter.com/adamwagner1/status/ ... 26082?s=21