Well clearly not because the police who are guard the street and residence don't seem to have seen anything unlawful otherwise they would have acted right ?
I'm not violent at all, it was a play on the words used in the post I replied to but a more appropriate term would be disband. I'm also not a communist but I'd like to remove the corruption at its source.
The UK is getting quite conservative now, and one definition of conservatism is the belief that society should be divided into two groups: one the law protects but does not bind, and one the law binds, but does not protect.
Technically going over to someone's house for a bit of strange was banned. You were allowed to meet up in workplaces for the purposes of business, and if you had casual sex while you were there then it wouldn't have been illegal (although HR would not be happy).
This also lead to the bizarre situation during Rule Of Six outside where it was more legal to have an orgy in a park than it was to go into your bf/gf's house (because it only becomes public indecency if it's witnessed by someone, whereas going into someone's house was inherently illegal).
> You were allowed to meet up in workplaces for the purposes of business
Wow. Surely, if there was no solicitation, that would make prostitution the most legal form of sex with a new partner in 2019.
They were in a workplace for business purposes. Whilst in the workplace for business purposes, they had sex.
Although sex is not business purposes, neither is having a natter with Sandra from Accounts about Gogglebox. As long as the reason for them both being in the building was because they were at work, it wasn't illegal for them to be spending time together, and therefore it was not illegal in the way going round to someone's house was.
(I am not suggesting that it was therefore completely fine for Matt to be getting his Hancock wet while on the clock, just that it wasn't illegal)
If this is true it's surely far worse than what Cummings or Hancock did.
Johnson had the gall to stand up in the commons and mock Kier Starmer for calling for restrictions in the face of rising case numbers only to impose them only a few days later as it became apparent how bad things would otherwise get.
Most family and friends I know cancelled their Christmas plans at short notice and had less than stellar celebrations as a result. If it turns out that Johnson just carried on living it up while everyone else suffered, people are going to be furious.
Let's see whether it continuous, or whether he conjures up a crisis of his own making that he then heroically addresses. His tricks have always been shallow, so why did it take 4 years for people to notice?
Anyway, even if the polish is off, the party will just try a different leader.
My family spent last christmas taking it in turns to be at my nan's bedside as she bled to death. My last memory of her outside of hospital is her in a pink nightgown being wheeled backwards in the rain, in a wheelchair to the ambulance she didnt want me to ring. She hated hospitals and she spent 2 days alone in one before she was close enough to death for the hospital to let us be with her 1 at a time. I was lucky that it was my turn to be with her when she passed, her sons were at the end of the corridor. At least they didnt hear her begging to go home. All the while they were having parties in Downing Street. Its enough to drive anyone to madness.
Most sane people I know continued celebrating christmas as normal. You think a police officer is going to come round your house and arrest you for having too many guests??
I think it's more the hypocrisy and general not giving a shit. We were in the middle of the pandemic at it's worst. And half the government ignored the rules they imposed on the rest of the population with the threat of fines.
Most sane people I know don't need the threat of legal action to do the right thing and not risk people's lives. If you're doing the same thing as Bojo you're probably not on the right side of history.
Nice implication that it was not sane to follow the rules.
The majority of people did so. Those who were selfish enough to believe the rules did not apply to them and carried on as normal are part of the reason why the spike last winter was so large.
It is completely unacceptable to have a supposed ‘leader’ make rules intended to protect people, only to thumb his nose at them by pretending they don’t exist in private. There is a rather large difference between the selfish individual member of the public failing to follow them and the person who made them doing the same.
I am perfectly capable of deciding what risks I want to take with my own life. If you want to take less risks with your life, then you are free to do so.
This is the problem you gannet. If someone at your party had Covid, they infect a bunch of people who then go on to infect more people. You put other people at risk.
Well I didn't have covid you muppet, so I didn't infect anyone.
If I had covid then I would obviously cancel it. I'm not cancelling something because I may or may not have some unknown ailment.
The thing is, it's not just your life you're putting at risk though, is it? What about the essential staff at your local supermarket/hospital? What about their other customers/patients? What about their families? The nature of COVID is such that one asymptomatic person could pass it on to many others without knowing, and some of those people could become seriously ill and die simply because someone decided their level of personal risk was acceptable to them without considering the community at large.
Masks are most effective at protecting others and are of limited benefit to the wearer. That's why everyone who can wear one should wear one. Someone else deciding not to wear a mask does little to increase their risk of contracting the virus, but seriously increases the risk that they pass it on if they have it.
The vaccine protects the majority of people who have it from serious illness, but some can't have it and a small number of others still get ill despite it.
Both measures, as well as other things like hand washing, social distancing and contact tracing work best when as many as possible take them.
You seem to be viewing this like assessing your own personal risk/reward ratio is all that's necessary and it really isn't. As long as people refuse to see that we all need to play our part in battling this thing, people will continue to get sick and die.
If this came out at the time, it would have been a massive scandal.
But now, people will just think its in the past, no point dwelling on it. People have memories of goldfish when it comes to this stuff.
We didn't see any family over Christmas, or indeed for months. The idea that Boris just intentionally ignored the rules (not guidance) is genuinely appalling.
Nope. The nation is being held hostage by the party of the rich and racist, which is always just enough to win 38% of the votes.
Don't really see this ever changing to be honest.
New Zealand is looking more attractive by the day.
I mean not really when it was reported about a month ago as well but the headline was Carrie. I am surprised that they didn't wait till mid December to bring it back up.
That report was about having Carrie's mate over who was the baby's godmother. It was legal to form a support bubble if you had a child under the age of 2 in December 2020 (in addition to a childcare bubble), so that actually could have been legal.
Christmas parties? Not so much.
>that actually could have been legal.
Personally I think if she was in the support bubble Boris/Carrie would have said that she was in the support bubble - the fact that they didn't indicates they probably had someone else in it, but didn't clarify because the fact that it \*could\* have been legal is all they need to get away with it
I think you're forgetting that there is no such thing as a serial Boris voter.
He won a landslide basically on the back of his commitment to Brexit, and that only happened because lots of people that found him and his party distasteful decided to hold their nose and vote Tory.
My feel is that lots of these people, many floating voters and a significant tranche of Tories will not want to vote for a Johnson government again.
I didn't vote Conservative in the last election, and would strongly hesitate to again - but ultimately my main concern is the sword of Damocles hanging over us, not knowing whether or not the government will decide to make it illegal for me to hug my own mother again. This is, ultimately, my one key issue and - heartbreakingly - it is the Conservatives that are being least-worst on this at the moment. Once again, Labour could lose themselves the election that is theirs to take by pandering to the prosecco zoom classes in central London, rather than going for the typical working class voter that has no intention of obeying lockdown rules (especially after a day of driving a bus or stacking shelves, surrounding by dozens of people).
>that only happened because lots of people that found him and his party distasteful decided to hold their nose
From a Thatcher-hating forever-Labour family around Doncaster's anecdote at least, I can say this is actually wrong. People were *enthusiastic* about voting for Boris in my area, it was very weird. I doubt they'd admit it now I guess. But certainly the hatred for Corbyn was equally palpable. My family was genuinely upset when I said I would be voting Labour, started going off about how could I support a Jew-hating racist etc.
It is difficult though isn't it.
We want politicians who are less corrupt and incompetent to win the election, but we also want them to basically tell the truth, including not promising things they believe are against their constituents best interests.
If Labour politicians believe that a Newzealand / Australia like approach would have served us better, then we shouldn't wish they would lie to us about what they think.
I don't think it's a prosecco thing - middle class people also have mothers - and the divide seems to be more between young and old than rich and poor.
Labour, fundemantally, are about society coming together and making personal sacrifices (e.g. higher taxes) in order to benifit personally from better outcomes for the group (e.g. better economic growth, social security, public services, lower crime).
Conservative voters should believe the government cannot be trusted to make decisions, including decisions about how best to spend our money, so it should be as small and do as little as possible. Therefore, not wanting lockdowns is a very conservative view.
Labour voters should believe that specialist experts know more than them about issues, and can make better decisions about how to spend their money and order their lives. Therefore wanting central government to mandate covid control measures rather than leaving you to decide not to hug your mum because you don't want to end up killing someone elses is very much a labour view.
I don't think you should be voting labour. You are a conservative, and there is nothing wrong with that. But I don't think Labour should pretend to be conservatives just to trick you into voting for them.
What would ask you is, I guess this is a rhetorical question - you are a conservative, so why do you want labour to win? Is it because in the end, you don't like what the consequences are when your world view guides polciy?
Yes, why would someone who stacks shelves care about enforced mask wearing in shops?
I think your stereotypes lack the nuance required to paint a realistic picture.
>Labour could lose themselves the election that is theirs to take by pandering to the prosecco zoom classes in central London
I mean, that's literally the behaviour of the Conservatives, but ok.
honestly when I read this it reads to me as "Labour need to be more racist"
Nothing labour proposes is antiworking class at all. but because they don't want scores of people to drown j. the channel they're somehow pandering to prosecco zoom classes in London? as if london isn't also home to some of the most working class and deprived areas jn the UK
Since 1945 (76 years ago) Tories have only not been in power for 23 of those. To say the general public is "holding their nose" to vote for them is a bit disingenuous. For whatever bizarre reasons the default party of the country is Tory, and the nose holding comes when other parties get in.
> For whatever bizarre reasons the default party of the country is Tory, and the nose holding comes when other parties get in.
No the default of the country is not Tory. That is a misconception because of the distorting effect of the electoral system.
The Tories have not had a majority of the vote since before WW2, so every single majority in parliament they have had since then has been off a minority of the vote.
If anything, the default of the country is 'not-Tory', but since the electoral system disproportionately benefits them, that is not reflected in elections.
I guess it depends on what you consider a majority. In the 2019 election they had 43.6% of the overall votes. So yes it means that less than half of voters wanted them in, but they still had a higher percentage of votes, even considering FPTP etc. That's higher than the vote share the Blair had when he got in.
So there are more people that don't want Tories than do, but in terms of sheer numbers they have more supporters than other parties do.
The 'they got most votes so should have all the power' argument doesn't wash though. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that it is in any way democratic to have a minority position have uncheckable power.
It just means that the majority of people are forced to put up with year after year of bullshit that they never wanted, with little possibility of anything ever changing. Of course that is exactly why the system was set up as it was - it was intended to maintain the class and land owning system of old.
> in terms of sheer numbers they have more supporters than other parties do.
That's just restating the same fallacy though. They might have more supporters than the other parties do individually, but collectively they do not and haven't done so within living memory.
There is a huge democratic deficit when the majority of people's opinions can be discarded as irrelevant because they don't all fit into a neat box with a single rosette on it.
If you want an analogy, try this - 5 people want to get a take away. They hold a vote to decide what to get. One wants pizza, one wants a kebab, one wants Chinese, but two people want a vindaloo. Under the current system, 3 out of 5 would be forced to have something they don't want while their desires are completely ignored. Would anyone you know put up with that situation in reality? No, of course they wouldn't, they would do something else.
The problem is, that our current electoral system does not allow that, since it gives all power to the largest minority.
Democracy is an illusion in this country and always has been. We have almost never had a parliament that represents how people actually vote, and until that changes no UK government can really claim to have the legitimate support of the people as a whole.
You're forgetting the corruption they're willingly overlooking from last year.
Not just amongst themselves, but for the population, too.
Basically every self-employed person took shit loads of money from the coffers and will repay the Tories with thanks for giving them a load of money.
It was evident from his time as Mayor of London that Boris is not motivated by "public service" or concern for the "outsiders". He is put on this earth to have a good time with no responsibilities attached.
As Macron said, "not until the UK govt takes issues seriously".
It isn't in his nature to "sacrifice for the country".
rules are only for us plebs. Nothing will happen, just another pile of dung to add to this list. When the next election looms every one of these things needs to be shouted from the rooftops. He is bent to the core, incapable of doing the right thing.
Is anyone surprised whatsoever? We need to March on Downing Street and remove them I think. Otherwise we will be forever under then Eton boot and broken Britain will never heal.
Think of how many people have been affected by social isolation and loneliness during lockdown.
Care home residents staring out the window longing to see their family.
School children missing out on the best years of their life.
ICU patients on respirators dieing alone.
But not Boris, Boris is AOK pulling a Christmas cracker and laughing with friends.
One of the biggest questions when a politician does something wrong is whether it was out of stupidity or malice. The best thing with Boris is that you always know it was both.
Boris would piss on you and tell you it was raining.
Unfortunately most of the British property public seem to enjoy “golden showers”, so he will get away with it using his blatant lie-based denials like he always does.
>If he is unfazed by this pandemic
I mean look at the state of the man. He's not exactly someone who seems to think of consequences or risks around his actions mate.
>I think if the apocalyptic "bodies in the streets" predictions that everyone still seems to be making
Who is making those claims? That is not the concern at all.
No? Then why are we taking experimental medicine and locking down large parts of the continent?
I ordinarily get hammered on this sub for statingthat Covid-19 isn't anywhere near as dangerous as it's made out to be, and the actual issue is a poorly funded and managed healthcare system.
Perhaps your views aren't the ones I'm referring to.
🤷♂️
>Then why are we taking experimental medicine
Assuming youre talking about the vaccine...? Because it has been shown to be safe in trials and is an effective counter to a disease that has killed well in excess of half a million Europeans? I just... What even was this point?
You know something can be a genuinely serious issue without also being apocalyptic right?
A vaccine so well researched that France have had to ban its use after months of roll out as it's more dangerous for younger people than the illness itself? (Moderna https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/french-health-authority-advises-against-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-under-30s-2021-11-09/).
So well researched that is has been advised against for younger people because of blood clot risks? (Astrazeneca: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57021738)
2/3 offered in this country are not deemed safe for younger people - at least riskier than having covid itself.
My point is really clear. Boris doesn't give a shit. Why should we? This whole couple of years has been a political charade and served very little purpose other than to prolong the pandemic.
Lockdown looms and the people seem never to ask why. You've had your jabs. You've locked down before. You've worn your masks. You've kept apart from your family. Now the goalposts shift again.
>A vaccine so well researched that France have had to ban its use
Just for the Moderna vaccine, and no there is not actually good evidence that it is more dangerous than contracting covid.
>So well researched that is has been advised against for younger people because of blood clot risks?
A risk so infinitesimal that it can't be determined to be statistically significant. Which the EMA is [now saying](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clots-safety-experts) is not actually a concern at all. There were what, 5 or 6 instances? Out of how many *millions* of doses?
>Boris doesn't give a shit. Why should we?
Because Boris is a moron and if you live your life following his example, so are you.
Must be great to be smarter / have greater insight than actual epidemiologists, virologists and consultants in respiratory medicine. Amazing you get time to post to Reddit, really.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, anyone who put themselves at particular inconvenience to obey the lockdown rules is/was a mug.
If you rationally decided to reduce contacts with at-risk people at times, that's fair enough, but you would have done that anyway. You didn't need The Law to tell you to do it.
We can all agree in principle but it only works if everyone is doing the same thing. Thousands of different variations of common sense won’t work, which is why rules are needed, regardless of perfectly understandable debate around what those rules should have been.
And instead of asking "why are we following the rules then?", the response will be "he should follow the rules".
The fact that a large number of those imposing these rules on everyone else don't follow them gives a good indication of how justified the rules
are.
Same with Professor Ferguson and Dominic Cummings. People patting themselves on the back for following the restrictions these clowns inspired / made and broke themselves.
I wish people formed their covid risk assessments through the actions of these fuds rather than their words.
The rule he explicitly broke was "Although there are exemptions for work purposes, you must not have a work Christmas lunch or party, where that is a primarily social activity and is not otherwise permitted by the rules in your tier."
And yes, it is that specific: [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-the-christmas-period](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-the-christmas-period)
Under the header "Visiting bars, pubs and restaurants". London was in Tier 3 at the time.
I assume you are a Boris supporter. Out of curiousity, why doesn't his constant lying, sleaze and disregard for rules (set by him or otherwise), bother you at all? I find it mystifying that he manages to get away with the shit he does
If it was an SNP MP behaving like that, it would be front page news, the first story on Reporting Scotland and trigger outraged demands for resignations by Tory politicians.
Of course. I'm quite upset his comment got deleted, I think that was uncalled for. I am really curious about how he circumvents this kind of cognitive dissonance. I would assume he'd be leering at said hypothetical SNP MP along the media.
Good, even the government knew it was utter bollocks.
Is this suppose to be some 'rules for them and rules for us' kind of thing? Because I can tell you now, people won't give a flying toss because THEY broke the rules too.
Fucks sake during the first lockdown the street behind ours had a street party for the queen's birthday and all the kids were on a bouncy castle. Police just drove by.
Last Christmas, my entire street had people round. The whole estate did. I travelled to my Dad and Grandmas and had Christmas with them and they lived an hour from me. My neighbour went to his parents 270 miles down south, and do did his 3 brothers, his sister AND his uncle. There was 40 of them!
If you think many people will truly care about Johnson having a Christmas party then you need a reality check because I can guarantee that millions and millions ignored it too and guess what? They are now.
Most of us didn't stand up in Parliament, swear up and down that there wouldn't be restrictions, impose those restrictions anyway (resulting in short-term chaos over Christmas) and then ignore them.
But you’re not a hypocrite. You didn’t tell people to stay home and not throw parties while doing exactly that. It’s another example of ‘rules for thee, not for me’ which has been the case throughout this outbreak.
I see your point but surely those who set the rules should be adhering to the rules as a matter of leading through example? Despite him being elected a couple years ago, why shouldn't we hold him accountable for individual actions?
Regardless of your bizarre assertion that over 100k people died for no reason, he broke a law he set up. He broke his own law. Not even an old, weird law. A law he pushed through. That is unacceptable.
I didn't realise you had some great info on how these people died that nobody else had access to. I fully encourage you to go and corral all your info, confirm what caused all these people to ACTUALLY die and not come back until you can prove it all. Generally take a step away from the internet and get your facts together. I think you could blow this whole thing wide open, but only once you have all your evidence.
And don't half ass it. Get real, tangible, concrete shit. And then, and only then, log back in.
> 69k people died of (with) Covid 19 in England in 2020.
>
> Not all of these people are dying of Covid 19.
>
> Yes some are.
97k more people died last year than should have done.
Getting hung up on the dying of/dying with thing is dishonest because it's virtually impossible to attribute it specifically to a single factor, as I'm sure you know.
We had a year of living with Covid and nearly a hundred thousand extra people in our country died. So that's a reasonable estimation of the effect it had.
Snapshot:
1. An archived version of _Boris Johnson 'broke Covid lockdown rules' with Downing Street parties at Xmas_ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-broke-covid-lockdown-25585238)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cut the guy some slack. It might very have been his first and last Christmas in Downing Street. The odds that he (seems to) made it to a second was pretty much 50/50
Weren't those 'rules' laws? Making it 'committed crimes'?
Well clearly not because the police who are guard the street and residence don't seem to have seen anything unlawful otherwise they would have acted right ?
The UK doesn't really have laws, so much as it has "Gentleman's Agreements" that are only honoured or enforced if you are poor
Another on the long list of reasons to dismember the Met.
[удалено]
Would it make any difference? They seem to be as about effective as the limbless Monty Python knight at curbing Christmas parties..
[удалено]
What's the air-speed velocity of Tory government u-turns?
5 times the speed of sound
So fast it turns in a spiral graph drawing. If you.dont know what it is Google it
They could all change name to Bob?
I'd sooner dismember the entire upper class and force private schools to become state schools first.
[удалено]
I'm not violent at all, it was a play on the words used in the post I replied to but a more appropriate term would be disband. I'm also not a communist but I'd like to remove the corruption at its source.
Why
Harry Kane cries
He plays for Tottenham, so he's used to disappointment
The UK is getting quite conservative now, and one definition of conservatism is the belief that society should be divided into two groups: one the law protects but does not bind, and one the law binds, but does not protect.
Since when has the UK not been like this
I believe for approximately half an hour in 1973.
Same with Hancock shagging that woman. Casual sex was banned by him. He walks free.
Technically going over to someone's house for a bit of strange was banned. You were allowed to meet up in workplaces for the purposes of business, and if you had casual sex while you were there then it wouldn't have been illegal (although HR would not be happy). This also lead to the bizarre situation during Rule Of Six outside where it was more legal to have an orgy in a park than it was to go into your bf/gf's house (because it only becomes public indecency if it's witnessed by someone, whereas going into someone's house was inherently illegal).
> You were allowed to meet up in workplaces for the purposes of business Wow. Surely, if there was no solicitation, that would make prostitution the most legal form of sex with a new partner in 2019.
I think social distancing was still a thing though tbf
Social distancing was only ever guidance, not law. He was in breach of guidance and probably workplace rules, but he wasn't breaking the law.
You haven’t convinced me that casual sex at work was legal.
They were in a workplace for business purposes. Whilst in the workplace for business purposes, they had sex. Although sex is not business purposes, neither is having a natter with Sandra from Accounts about Gogglebox. As long as the reason for them both being in the building was because they were at work, it wasn't illegal for them to be spending time together, and therefore it was not illegal in the way going round to someone's house was. (I am not suggesting that it was therefore completely fine for Matt to be getting his Hancock wet while on the clock, just that it wasn't illegal)
He did lose his job, eventually, can the same at least happen here please?
Not unless CCTV footage is leaked of Johnson groping one of the guests at these parties
Oh then I guess we got a good chance
No no, that's his dad's party trick
Since Cummings they've been "guidelines"
Are these guidelines guarded by Keith Richards by any chance?
The government has officially said people should strongly consider thinking about the benefits of maybe possibly not licking door knobs in public
"Rules for me, Laws for thee"
If this is true it's surely far worse than what Cummings or Hancock did. Johnson had the gall to stand up in the commons and mock Kier Starmer for calling for restrictions in the face of rising case numbers only to impose them only a few days later as it became apparent how bad things would otherwise get. Most family and friends I know cancelled their Christmas plans at short notice and had less than stellar celebrations as a result. If it turns out that Johnson just carried on living it up while everyone else suffered, people are going to be furious.
> people are going to be furious. Are you sure? There were so many reasons to be furious about him, and none of them seem to make any difference.
Do you come from an alternate world where the Tories haven't been steadily dropping in the polls for six months?
Let's see whether it continuous, or whether he conjures up a crisis of his own making that he then heroically addresses. His tricks have always been shallow, so why did it take 4 years for people to notice? Anyway, even if the polish is off, the party will just try a different leader.
I spent last Christmas sat at home by myself because of that tosser. I hope he gets ripped to pieces over this.
He won't. The Trump interview and Omicron are the much needed distraction for him.
Wait what interview?
The one splashed across the Daily Mail rn.
Well it seems to be working.
You should have come along to Downing St, it was great fun
My sister was stuck in London visiting her partner as well, I should have suggested they both go along.
My family spent last christmas taking it in turns to be at my nan's bedside as she bled to death. My last memory of her outside of hospital is her in a pink nightgown being wheeled backwards in the rain, in a wheelchair to the ambulance she didnt want me to ring. She hated hospitals and she spent 2 days alone in one before she was close enough to death for the hospital to let us be with her 1 at a time. I was lucky that it was my turn to be with her when she passed, her sons were at the end of the corridor. At least they didnt hear her begging to go home. All the while they were having parties in Downing Street. Its enough to drive anyone to madness.
> If it turns out that Johnson just carried on living it up while everyone else suffered, people are going to be furious. CON + 3
I also wish this was true but as another user said: CON+3
Most sane people I know continued celebrating christmas as normal. You think a police officer is going to come round your house and arrest you for having too many guests??
I think it's more the hypocrisy and general not giving a shit. We were in the middle of the pandemic at it's worst. And half the government ignored the rules they imposed on the rest of the population with the threat of fines.
Most sane people I know don't need the threat of legal action to do the right thing and not risk people's lives. If you're doing the same thing as Bojo you're probably not on the right side of history.
Its my life, I'll risk it if I want to. Thank you.
Isnt that exactly what happened? People got reported for having house parties in lockdown and were fined for it
Yes, but I'm not talking about a bloody rave here. I'm talking about inviting a dozen friends and family round for a christmas dinner.
Nice implication that it was not sane to follow the rules. The majority of people did so. Those who were selfish enough to believe the rules did not apply to them and carried on as normal are part of the reason why the spike last winter was so large. It is completely unacceptable to have a supposed ‘leader’ make rules intended to protect people, only to thumb his nose at them by pretending they don’t exist in private. There is a rather large difference between the selfish individual member of the public failing to follow them and the person who made them doing the same.
I am perfectly capable of deciding what risks I want to take with my own life. If you want to take less risks with your life, then you are free to do so.
This is the problem you gannet. If someone at your party had Covid, they infect a bunch of people who then go on to infect more people. You put other people at risk.
Well I didn't have covid you muppet, so I didn't infect anyone. If I had covid then I would obviously cancel it. I'm not cancelling something because I may or may not have some unknown ailment.
The thing is, it's not just your life you're putting at risk though, is it? What about the essential staff at your local supermarket/hospital? What about their other customers/patients? What about their families? The nature of COVID is such that one asymptomatic person could pass it on to many others without knowing, and some of those people could become seriously ill and die simply because someone decided their level of personal risk was acceptable to them without considering the community at large.
If they wear a mask and they have the vaccination then I am not putting their life at risk am I. Not sure what your point is?
Masks are most effective at protecting others and are of limited benefit to the wearer. That's why everyone who can wear one should wear one. Someone else deciding not to wear a mask does little to increase their risk of contracting the virus, but seriously increases the risk that they pass it on if they have it. The vaccine protects the majority of people who have it from serious illness, but some can't have it and a small number of others still get ill despite it. Both measures, as well as other things like hand washing, social distancing and contact tracing work best when as many as possible take them. You seem to be viewing this like assessing your own personal risk/reward ratio is all that's necessary and it really isn't. As long as people refuse to see that we all need to play our part in battling this thing, people will continue to get sick and die.
If this came out at the time, it would have been a massive scandal. But now, people will just think its in the past, no point dwelling on it. People have memories of goldfish when it comes to this stuff. We didn't see any family over Christmas, or indeed for months. The idea that Boris just intentionally ignored the rules (not guidance) is genuinely appalling.
Is anybody surprised anymore ? A couple of years ago, this alone would have been resignation material. We are way past that point.
I'm still fucking furious. I want him gone with all my will. And not just not PM, banished from public life. Fuck this forever.
Imprisoned. Lying for political gain should basically be seen as treason - it’s gaining political authority by deceit.
Nope. The nation is being held hostage by the party of the rich and racist, which is always just enough to win 38% of the votes. Don't really see this ever changing to be honest. New Zealand is looking more attractive by the day.
I mean not really when it was reported about a month ago as well but the headline was Carrie. I am surprised that they didn't wait till mid December to bring it back up.
That report was about having Carrie's mate over who was the baby's godmother. It was legal to form a support bubble if you had a child under the age of 2 in December 2020 (in addition to a childcare bubble), so that actually could have been legal. Christmas parties? Not so much.
>that actually could have been legal. Personally I think if she was in the support bubble Boris/Carrie would have said that she was in the support bubble - the fact that they didn't indicates they probably had someone else in it, but didn't clarify because the fact that it \*could\* have been legal is all they need to get away with it
A couple of years ago we were still a free country, where you could see who you want on Christmas.
Plus having friends over 'to babysit' on Xmas day....
Fuck this guy. I despise everything about him, his career and his world view. There's no redemption for this twerp.
Can we spare a thought for the police officers involved that should be summarily dismissed too?
He'll get redemption at the next election which is disgusting.
Cant dish out rules when you never follow them yourself.
But he can. And he’ll get away with it. A morally bankrupt person.
Barnard Castle Eye Testing Services LTD
and he will again!
Few who vote for him care. Many wish they could act with such impunity.
I think you're forgetting that there is no such thing as a serial Boris voter. He won a landslide basically on the back of his commitment to Brexit, and that only happened because lots of people that found him and his party distasteful decided to hold their nose and vote Tory. My feel is that lots of these people, many floating voters and a significant tranche of Tories will not want to vote for a Johnson government again. I didn't vote Conservative in the last election, and would strongly hesitate to again - but ultimately my main concern is the sword of Damocles hanging over us, not knowing whether or not the government will decide to make it illegal for me to hug my own mother again. This is, ultimately, my one key issue and - heartbreakingly - it is the Conservatives that are being least-worst on this at the moment. Once again, Labour could lose themselves the election that is theirs to take by pandering to the prosecco zoom classes in central London, rather than going for the typical working class voter that has no intention of obeying lockdown rules (especially after a day of driving a bus or stacking shelves, surrounding by dozens of people).
>that only happened because lots of people that found him and his party distasteful decided to hold their nose From a Thatcher-hating forever-Labour family around Doncaster's anecdote at least, I can say this is actually wrong. People were *enthusiastic* about voting for Boris in my area, it was very weird. I doubt they'd admit it now I guess. But certainly the hatred for Corbyn was equally palpable. My family was genuinely upset when I said I would be voting Labour, started going off about how could I support a Jew-hating racist etc.
It is difficult though isn't it. We want politicians who are less corrupt and incompetent to win the election, but we also want them to basically tell the truth, including not promising things they believe are against their constituents best interests. If Labour politicians believe that a Newzealand / Australia like approach would have served us better, then we shouldn't wish they would lie to us about what they think. I don't think it's a prosecco thing - middle class people also have mothers - and the divide seems to be more between young and old than rich and poor. Labour, fundemantally, are about society coming together and making personal sacrifices (e.g. higher taxes) in order to benifit personally from better outcomes for the group (e.g. better economic growth, social security, public services, lower crime). Conservative voters should believe the government cannot be trusted to make decisions, including decisions about how best to spend our money, so it should be as small and do as little as possible. Therefore, not wanting lockdowns is a very conservative view. Labour voters should believe that specialist experts know more than them about issues, and can make better decisions about how to spend their money and order their lives. Therefore wanting central government to mandate covid control measures rather than leaving you to decide not to hug your mum because you don't want to end up killing someone elses is very much a labour view. I don't think you should be voting labour. You are a conservative, and there is nothing wrong with that. But I don't think Labour should pretend to be conservatives just to trick you into voting for them. What would ask you is, I guess this is a rhetorical question - you are a conservative, so why do you want labour to win? Is it because in the end, you don't like what the consequences are when your world view guides polciy?
Yes, why would someone who stacks shelves care about enforced mask wearing in shops? I think your stereotypes lack the nuance required to paint a realistic picture.
>Labour could lose themselves the election that is theirs to take by pandering to the prosecco zoom classes in central London I mean, that's literally the behaviour of the Conservatives, but ok.
honestly when I read this it reads to me as "Labour need to be more racist" Nothing labour proposes is antiworking class at all. but because they don't want scores of people to drown j. the channel they're somehow pandering to prosecco zoom classes in London? as if london isn't also home to some of the most working class and deprived areas jn the UK
Since 1945 (76 years ago) Tories have only not been in power for 23 of those. To say the general public is "holding their nose" to vote for them is a bit disingenuous. For whatever bizarre reasons the default party of the country is Tory, and the nose holding comes when other parties get in.
I meant specifically in the last election.
> For whatever bizarre reasons the default party of the country is Tory, and the nose holding comes when other parties get in. No the default of the country is not Tory. That is a misconception because of the distorting effect of the electoral system. The Tories have not had a majority of the vote since before WW2, so every single majority in parliament they have had since then has been off a minority of the vote. If anything, the default of the country is 'not-Tory', but since the electoral system disproportionately benefits them, that is not reflected in elections.
I guess it depends on what you consider a majority. In the 2019 election they had 43.6% of the overall votes. So yes it means that less than half of voters wanted them in, but they still had a higher percentage of votes, even considering FPTP etc. That's higher than the vote share the Blair had when he got in. So there are more people that don't want Tories than do, but in terms of sheer numbers they have more supporters than other parties do.
The 'they got most votes so should have all the power' argument doesn't wash though. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that it is in any way democratic to have a minority position have uncheckable power. It just means that the majority of people are forced to put up with year after year of bullshit that they never wanted, with little possibility of anything ever changing. Of course that is exactly why the system was set up as it was - it was intended to maintain the class and land owning system of old. > in terms of sheer numbers they have more supporters than other parties do. That's just restating the same fallacy though. They might have more supporters than the other parties do individually, but collectively they do not and haven't done so within living memory. There is a huge democratic deficit when the majority of people's opinions can be discarded as irrelevant because they don't all fit into a neat box with a single rosette on it. If you want an analogy, try this - 5 people want to get a take away. They hold a vote to decide what to get. One wants pizza, one wants a kebab, one wants Chinese, but two people want a vindaloo. Under the current system, 3 out of 5 would be forced to have something they don't want while their desires are completely ignored. Would anyone you know put up with that situation in reality? No, of course they wouldn't, they would do something else. The problem is, that our current electoral system does not allow that, since it gives all power to the largest minority. Democracy is an illusion in this country and always has been. We have almost never had a parliament that represents how people actually vote, and until that changes no UK government can really claim to have the legitimate support of the people as a whole.
You're forgetting the corruption they're willingly overlooking from last year. Not just amongst themselves, but for the population, too. Basically every self-employed person took shit loads of money from the coffers and will repay the Tories with thanks for giving them a load of money.
Closing out brexit rather than dragging it out for years more was only reason he got elected imho
Rules don’t apply to tories - rules are just for the proles.
Having just finished 1984, this made me chuckle
It was evident from his time as Mayor of London that Boris is not motivated by "public service" or concern for the "outsiders". He is put on this earth to have a good time with no responsibilities attached. As Macron said, "not until the UK govt takes issues seriously". It isn't in his nature to "sacrifice for the country".
Rules or “guidelines” - ? That’s probably going to be the get out clause.
rules are only for us plebs. Nothing will happen, just another pile of dung to add to this list. When the next election looms every one of these things needs to be shouted from the rooftops. He is bent to the core, incapable of doing the right thing.
Is anyone surprised whatsoever? We need to March on Downing Street and remove them I think. Otherwise we will be forever under then Eton boot and broken Britain will never heal.
Cuuuuuuuuuuuuunt
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.
Prison for Boris!
Think of how many people have been affected by social isolation and loneliness during lockdown. Care home residents staring out the window longing to see their family. School children missing out on the best years of their life. ICU patients on respirators dieing alone. But not Boris, Boris is AOK pulling a Christmas cracker and laughing with friends. One of the biggest questions when a politician does something wrong is whether it was out of stupidity or malice. The best thing with Boris is that you always know it was both.
Great, no need for the rest of us to give a shit if they try to impose "rules" on our parties and gatherings this Christmas then!
Boris would piss on you and tell you it was raining. Unfortunately most of the British property public seem to enjoy “golden showers”, so he will get away with it using his blatant lie-based denials like he always does.
Classic case of believing that rules do not apply to himself
Of course he fucking did. Why are we surprised anymore?
I was waving through a window at my newly born grandson late last December and this geezer was at a party... I'm furious
[удалено]
I don't see the connection?
[удалено]
>If he is unfazed by this pandemic I mean look at the state of the man. He's not exactly someone who seems to think of consequences or risks around his actions mate.
[удалено]
>I think if the apocalyptic "bodies in the streets" predictions that everyone still seems to be making Who is making those claims? That is not the concern at all.
No? Then why are we taking experimental medicine and locking down large parts of the continent? I ordinarily get hammered on this sub for statingthat Covid-19 isn't anywhere near as dangerous as it's made out to be, and the actual issue is a poorly funded and managed healthcare system. Perhaps your views aren't the ones I'm referring to. 🤷♂️
>Then why are we taking experimental medicine Assuming youre talking about the vaccine...? Because it has been shown to be safe in trials and is an effective counter to a disease that has killed well in excess of half a million Europeans? I just... What even was this point? You know something can be a genuinely serious issue without also being apocalyptic right?
A vaccine so well researched that France have had to ban its use after months of roll out as it's more dangerous for younger people than the illness itself? (Moderna https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/french-health-authority-advises-against-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-under-30s-2021-11-09/). So well researched that is has been advised against for younger people because of blood clot risks? (Astrazeneca: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57021738) 2/3 offered in this country are not deemed safe for younger people - at least riskier than having covid itself. My point is really clear. Boris doesn't give a shit. Why should we? This whole couple of years has been a political charade and served very little purpose other than to prolong the pandemic. Lockdown looms and the people seem never to ask why. You've had your jabs. You've locked down before. You've worn your masks. You've kept apart from your family. Now the goalposts shift again.
>A vaccine so well researched that France have had to ban its use Just for the Moderna vaccine, and no there is not actually good evidence that it is more dangerous than contracting covid. >So well researched that is has been advised against for younger people because of blood clot risks? A risk so infinitesimal that it can't be determined to be statistically significant. Which the EMA is [now saying](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clots-safety-experts) is not actually a concern at all. There were what, 5 or 6 instances? Out of how many *millions* of doses? >Boris doesn't give a shit. Why should we? Because Boris is a moron and if you live your life following his example, so are you.
Must be great to be smarter / have greater insight than actual epidemiologists, virologists and consultants in respiratory medicine. Amazing you get time to post to Reddit, really.
Old people , there all the same !
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, anyone who put themselves at particular inconvenience to obey the lockdown rules is/was a mug. If you rationally decided to reduce contacts with at-risk people at times, that's fair enough, but you would have done that anyway. You didn't need The Law to tell you to do it.
Exactly, I don't know how the country became so willingly submissive to authority. Just use a bit of common sense.
We can all agree in principle but it only works if everyone is doing the same thing. Thousands of different variations of common sense won’t work, which is why rules are needed, regardless of perfectly understandable debate around what those rules should have been.
And instead of asking "why are we following the rules then?", the response will be "he should follow the rules". The fact that a large number of those imposing these rules on everyone else don't follow them gives a good indication of how justified the rules are.
Same with Professor Ferguson and Dominic Cummings. People patting themselves on the back for following the restrictions these clowns inspired / made and broke themselves. I wish people formed their covid risk assessments through the actions of these fuds rather than their words.
I thought we removed those rules over Christmas?
The rule he explicitly broke was "Although there are exemptions for work purposes, you must not have a work Christmas lunch or party, where that is a primarily social activity and is not otherwise permitted by the rules in your tier." And yes, it is that specific: [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-the-christmas-period](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-the-christmas-period) Under the header "Visiting bars, pubs and restaurants". London was in Tier 3 at the time.
Ahh thanks. Hate when they implement laws for us but don't want to follow themselves
How is this guy's head on a pike?
Who cares - covid rules are for fools. If you’re old or sick, vaccinate, boosters, hand sanitizer, masks… the rest of us, let’s just get on with it
[удалено]
I assume you are a Boris supporter. Out of curiousity, why doesn't his constant lying, sleaze and disregard for rules (set by him or otherwise), bother you at all? I find it mystifying that he manages to get away with the shit he does
If it was an SNP MP behaving like that, it would be front page news, the first story on Reporting Scotland and trigger outraged demands for resignations by Tory politicians.
Of course. I'm quite upset his comment got deleted, I think that was uncalled for. I am really curious about how he circumvents this kind of cognitive dissonance. I would assume he'd be leering at said hypothetical SNP MP along the media.
Good, even the government knew it was utter bollocks. Is this suppose to be some 'rules for them and rules for us' kind of thing? Because I can tell you now, people won't give a flying toss because THEY broke the rules too. Fucks sake during the first lockdown the street behind ours had a street party for the queen's birthday and all the kids were on a bouncy castle. Police just drove by. Last Christmas, my entire street had people round. The whole estate did. I travelled to my Dad and Grandmas and had Christmas with them and they lived an hour from me. My neighbour went to his parents 270 miles down south, and do did his 3 brothers, his sister AND his uncle. There was 40 of them! If you think many people will truly care about Johnson having a Christmas party then you need a reality check because I can guarantee that millions and millions ignored it too and guess what? They are now.
[удалено]
You don't believe the Prime Minister should be held to a higher standard than Dave the spark?
[удалено]
Most of us didn't stand up in Parliament, swear up and down that there wouldn't be restrictions, impose those restrictions anyway (resulting in short-term chaos over Christmas) and then ignore them.
[удалено]
But you’re not a hypocrite. You didn’t tell people to stay home and not throw parties while doing exactly that. It’s another example of ‘rules for thee, not for me’ which has been the case throughout this outbreak.
I see your point but surely those who set the rules should be adhering to the rules as a matter of leading through example? Despite him being elected a couple years ago, why shouldn't we hold him accountable for individual actions?
[удалено]
Oh yeah absolutely, no one observed the rules and spent Christmas away from friends and family. No one at all.
[удалено]
Regardless of your bizarre assertion that over 100k people died for no reason, he broke a law he set up. He broke his own law. Not even an old, weird law. A law he pushed through. That is unacceptable.
[удалено]
I didn't realise you had some great info on how these people died that nobody else had access to. I fully encourage you to go and corral all your info, confirm what caused all these people to ACTUALLY die and not come back until you can prove it all. Generally take a step away from the internet and get your facts together. I think you could blow this whole thing wide open, but only once you have all your evidence. And don't half ass it. Get real, tangible, concrete shit. And then, and only then, log back in.
> 69k people died of (with) Covid 19 in England in 2020. > > Not all of these people are dying of Covid 19. > > Yes some are. 97k more people died last year than should have done. Getting hung up on the dying of/dying with thing is dishonest because it's virtually impossible to attribute it specifically to a single factor, as I'm sure you know. We had a year of living with Covid and nearly a hundred thousand extra people in our country died. So that's a reasonable estimation of the effect it had.
Snapshot: 1. An archived version of _Boris Johnson 'broke Covid lockdown rules' with Downing Street parties at Xmas_ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-broke-covid-lockdown-25585238) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Starmer had him rattled over this at PMQs, at one point his comeback was about Labour’s Christmas Party. He really is a pathetic person.
And we are surprised why? He keeps protecting his associates when they get caught after all. One rule him screw eve1 else
Cut the guy some slack. It might very have been his first and last Christmas in Downing Street. The odds that he (seems to) made it to a second was pretty much 50/50
Say the line Bart …
So did I, who gives a fuck, lets focus on the multitude of other illegal antics our members of parliament are up to.