Well At Least Sir Kier Is Topping One...
News2 mins ago
Too Little ,Too Late Mr J
Who but the hardest could ever forget seeing the Queen sitting alone at the funeral of her husband while even the night before , a party was in full swing at among the MP,she cut such a lonely figure in her time of need and comfort from her family, like thousands more up and down the land
https:/
https:/
Answers
I think she sat alone, to show an example, due to covid. Very wise... I still can't give a monkeys about who partied and when. They gave the advice that was... potentially, safest, which was right. Risked themselves, up to them. What bothers me is those fined or literally prevented from seeing dying people. But I see that as a different issue... that was down to...
13:42 Fri 14th Jan 2022
If only,if only.If the Labour Party had elected a non anti-semitic,non terrorist supporting leader of their party after Mr Milliband resigned then perhaps we wouldnt have Brexit,we wouldnt have Boris Johnson.They voted for the old scarecrow and we have got an even scarier scarecrow in his place.Thanks Momentum,thanks Corbynites.
i am really unclear over what the problem is - get-togethers werent banned covid-wise then were they? (TBH i cant remember what rules were when now)
If the apologies are for "partying" the night before someone's (probably not personally known, not in their family) funeral - so what? I think somepeople in the country probably went to parties the night before my granny's funeral, but i dont feel they need to apologise to me
If the apologies are for "partying" the night before someone's (probably not personally known, not in their family) funeral - so what? I think somepeople in the country probably went to parties the night before my granny's funeral, but i dont feel they need to apologise to me
/// Under the rules which applied on 20 May when the alleged party happened, people were allowed to leave their homes to spend time in public spaces outdoors, subject to “not meeting up with any more than one person from outside your household” and remaining two metres away from anyone outside of your household.////
bednobs
i am really unclear over what the problem is - get-togethers werent banned covid-wise then were they? (TBH i cant remember what rules were when now)
If the apologies are for "partying" the night before someone's (probably not personally known, not in their family) funeral - so what? I think somepeople in the country probably went to parties the night before my granny's funeral, but i dont feel they need to apologise to me
——-
But a government ought to show due deference and respect to the monarch especially as the head of said government has an audience with her once a week anyway
There are such things as protocol and manners that a government are expected to abide by
i am really unclear over what the problem is - get-togethers werent banned covid-wise then were they? (TBH i cant remember what rules were when now)
If the apologies are for "partying" the night before someone's (probably not personally known, not in their family) funeral - so what? I think somepeople in the country probably went to parties the night before my granny's funeral, but i dont feel they need to apologise to me
——-
But a government ought to show due deference and respect to the monarch especially as the head of said government has an audience with her once a week anyway
There are such things as protocol and manners that a government are expected to abide by
bednobs
People who work at downing Street aren't usually in the government though?
——-
Makes no difference
The head honcho in the hot seat sets the tone and standard for government
Hence the mess they are in right now
Whoever was there obviously had no fear that they were in the wrong
There is a ‘could not care less because we are untouchable and unaccountable’ culture about the whole place right now
Who would that be down to I wonder ?
People who work at downing Street aren't usually in the government though?
——-
Makes no difference
The head honcho in the hot seat sets the tone and standard for government
Hence the mess they are in right now
Whoever was there obviously had no fear that they were in the wrong
There is a ‘could not care less because we are untouchable and unaccountable’ culture about the whole place right now
Who would that be down to I wonder ?
//
//They gave the advice that was... potentially, safest,...//
They didn't "give advice" Pixie. They introduced legislation which provided for hefty financial penalties, pursued through the criminal courts if not paid (with imprisonment as the ultimate sanction for non-payment). That's not advice, it's enforcement against everyday activities that had become - outrageously - criminalised.
This is the whole point. These laws were introduced in order to counter the pandemic. In order to be successful they had to apply to everybody. But Ministers and their staff were of the opinion that they didn't apply to them because (so the nonsense goes) they were "work-related". //
NJ's position is typically impossible to gainsay.
I remain open-mouthed at the willingness of some posters to conclude that because the government's parties were 'work-related', that was OK.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I remember, the Covid Regulations - not 'advice', regulations - allowed meeting one other person outside, socially distanced.
Now how that gets translated into a party - 'works' or otherwise, simply does not fly.
BT, who I worked for over forty-three years, banned alcohol on its premises decades ago, and when I wanted a leaving do, I had it in the pub up the road, without a second thought.
Why are government drones seen as exempt from the laws that govern the rest of us, and why does their leader think that not seeing their gatherings as a 'party' makes them OK?
It's not OK.
//They gave the advice that was... potentially, safest,...//
They didn't "give advice" Pixie. They introduced legislation which provided for hefty financial penalties, pursued through the criminal courts if not paid (with imprisonment as the ultimate sanction for non-payment). That's not advice, it's enforcement against everyday activities that had become - outrageously - criminalised.
This is the whole point. These laws were introduced in order to counter the pandemic. In order to be successful they had to apply to everybody. But Ministers and their staff were of the opinion that they didn't apply to them because (so the nonsense goes) they were "work-related". //
NJ's position is typically impossible to gainsay.
I remain open-mouthed at the willingness of some posters to conclude that because the government's parties were 'work-related', that was OK.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I remember, the Covid Regulations - not 'advice', regulations - allowed meeting one other person outside, socially distanced.
Now how that gets translated into a party - 'works' or otherwise, simply does not fly.
BT, who I worked for over forty-three years, banned alcohol on its premises decades ago, and when I wanted a leaving do, I had it in the pub up the road, without a second thought.
Why are government drones seen as exempt from the laws that govern the rest of us, and why does their leader think that not seeing their gatherings as a 'party' makes them OK?
It's not OK.
//People who work I downing Street are not the government//
Indeed not. But No 10 is the Prime Minister's official office and quite a number of government staff (civil servants, over whom Ministers and their senior civil servants are supposed to have control). As mentioned above by both Any and me, large organisations (and small ones) prohibited alcohol being consumed on work premises decades ago. There is no doubt, from what I have heard, that there is a culture of "Friday Night drinking" inside No 10. Parties are held there. In normal times this would be bad enough - there's no reason why government offices should be used for such activities. But, as emphasised here, these were not (and still are not) normal times. Continual efforts are being made, here and elsewhere, to justify or excuse these activities taking place when the law specifically prevented them. There are countless examples of similar events being held where the organisers and/or the participants have had penalties imposed on them.
The government must set an example if it wants to criminalise everyday activities and expect compliance. Whether those involved were Ministers or staff makes no difference. Ministers and senior Civil Servants must (or should) have known about them. If they didn't they are incompetent and if they did they are complicit. Either way, it was a terrible example to set to the population who were told (not asked, told) to refrain from such events. It is contemptuous and to try to excuse them with the explanations given insult the intelligence.
Indeed not. But No 10 is the Prime Minister's official office and quite a number of government staff (civil servants, over whom Ministers and their senior civil servants are supposed to have control). As mentioned above by both Any and me, large organisations (and small ones) prohibited alcohol being consumed on work premises decades ago. There is no doubt, from what I have heard, that there is a culture of "Friday Night drinking" inside No 10. Parties are held there. In normal times this would be bad enough - there's no reason why government offices should be used for such activities. But, as emphasised here, these were not (and still are not) normal times. Continual efforts are being made, here and elsewhere, to justify or excuse these activities taking place when the law specifically prevented them. There are countless examples of similar events being held where the organisers and/or the participants have had penalties imposed on them.
The government must set an example if it wants to criminalise everyday activities and expect compliance. Whether those involved were Ministers or staff makes no difference. Ministers and senior Civil Servants must (or should) have known about them. If they didn't they are incompetent and if they did they are complicit. Either way, it was a terrible example to set to the population who were told (not asked, told) to refrain from such events. It is contemptuous and to try to excuse them with the explanations given insult the intelligence.
Without wishing to insult your intelligence further nj, my main point is why apologise to the Queen? She doesn't know them, they probably dont know her. People who work at number 10 are not all government. Leaving aside the legality or otherwise at the time which as identified earlier I can't remember what ut was then it's the sheer ridiculousness of apologising for having a party the evening before her husbands funeral
Look at the title on this thread, it isn't about the people who work at Downing St, it's about Boris Johnson.
At the end of the day, the buck rests with him and he does know the Queen and she knows him.
He is the one telling us what we can't do, but it doesn't seem to apply to him and his cronies.
Comparing this to other situations doesn't compare, it isn't the same.
I'm pretty sure the Queen would not be amused to find that partying was going on at any time it wasn't allowed, but partying on the eve of her husbands funeral?
He is her Prime Minister for goodness sakes.
At the end of the day, the buck rests with him and he does know the Queen and she knows him.
He is the one telling us what we can't do, but it doesn't seem to apply to him and his cronies.
Comparing this to other situations doesn't compare, it isn't the same.
I'm pretty sure the Queen would not be amused to find that partying was going on at any time it wasn't allowed, but partying on the eve of her husbands funeral?
He is her Prime Minister for goodness sakes.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Motoring6 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
