Taking the piss.

[the other bob wilson]

There is no way that party ( or any others ) would have taken place without a thorough risk assessment before hand. Clearly the P.M’s advisors, medical staff , bodyguards, thought he and other high ranking government members were ok to attend.

There was no vaccine at the time either .

How on earth can you know that? Even if you're right, it's an absolutely terrible look because 99 per cent of the population did not have such risk assessments beforehand, they were just told they could not do it. It's being reported that there were widespread misgivings among many in Downing Street about the party going ahead.

[TWGL1]

It still went ahead regardless of misgivings, and the people who had these misgivings kept quiet about it until it was leaked yesterday.

[the other bob wilson]

It still went ahead regardless of misgivings, and the people who had these misgivings kept quiet about it until it was leaked yesterday.

And your point is? You said there would have been risk assessments carried out, you're only guessing that and, frankly, with this Government under this Prime Minister, I would not be the least bit surprised if there wasn't. Even if there was, it was still a flagrant breaking of the rules which cannot be fobbed off this time as a work meeting - you need to cast your mind back to what it was like in May 2020, bring a bottle parties were not allowed if I remember rightly.

[TWGL1]

And your point is? You said there would have been risk assessments carried out, you're only guessing that and, frankly, with this Government under this Prime Minister, I would not be the least bit surprised if there wasn't. Even if there was, it was still a flagrant breaking of the rules which cannot be fobbed off this time as a work meeting - you need to cast your mind back to what it was like in May 2020, bring a bottle parties were not allowed if I remember rightly.

Sage, at this time, were predicting a reasonable worst-case planning scenario, of 250,000 deaths which was why the public didn’t require to have a risk assessment.

Those who attended the gathering must have had a risk assessment, based on the modelling. If they didn’t I personally couldn’t see how the party would have been authorised. But that is my take on it, unless they thought the SAGE modelling was questionable?

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-29-march-2020

[cyril evans awaydays]

Sage, at this time, were predicting a reasonable worst-case planning scenario, of 250,000 deaths which was why the public didn’t require to have a risk assessment.

Those who attended the gathering must have had a risk assessment, based on the modelling. If they didn’t I personally couldn’t see how the party would have been authorised. But that is my take on it, unless they thought the SAGE modelling was questionable?

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-29-march-2020

I have read your first sentence a number of times and still don't have a scooby what it means. That's notwithstanding the fact that the document you attached says nothing whatsoever about 250k deaths, which I presume you got from Imperial College's initial analysis of what would happen if no restrictions were imposed.

Witter on about risk analysis all you like. This is about the people who made the rules living by a completely different set. Pure and simple!

[TWGL1]

I have read your first sentence a number of times and still don't have a scooby what it means. That's notwithstanding the fact that the document you attached says nothing whatsoever about 250k deaths, which I presume you got from Imperial College's initial analysis of what would happen if no restrictions were imposed.

Witter on about risk analysis all you like. This is about the people who made the rules living by a completely different set. Pure and simple!

Sage predicted 250,000 deaths at the time apologies if it’s the incorrect documentation, perhaps you could post the reasons for the initial lockdown and figures quoted ( I’m sure you are acutely aware of what I was trying to say )

A risk assessment would have been undertaken, ( even something like have you had a cold in the last 28 days, are any family members displaying symptoms or high risk etc ).


Up to 100 people were at the party, not withstanding bar staff, security, and they would have been in contact with many taxi drivers taking them to and from the venue.

The people who attended would then have gone home to parents , children, grandparents etc.

The party held is not my concern ( as I wasn’t there ) but it appears that they were less concerned about the dangers to Covid compared to what they told the public to be at the time. I wonder why ?

[the other bob wilson]

Sage predicted 250,000 deaths at the time apologies if it’s the incorrect documentation, perhaps you could post the reasons for the initial lockdown and figures quoted ( I’m sure you are acutely aware of what I was trying to say )

A risk assessment would have been undertaken, ( even something like have you had a cold in the last 28 days, are any family members displaying symptoms or high risk etc ).


Up to 100 people were at the party, not withstanding bar staff, security, and they would have been in contact with many taxi drivers taking them to and from the venue.

The people who attended would then have gone home to parents , children, grandparents etc.

The party held is not my concern ( as I wasn’t there ) but it appears that they were less concerned about the dangers to Covid compared to what they told the public to be at the time. I wonder why ?

From memory, Neil Ferguson’s modelling back in 2020 predicted 250,000 deaths as a worst case scenario in the event of no restrictions being in force and I think it’s fair to say that it was reported as the biggest single factor in convincing both Government and their scientists from going on with their early decision to look towards Herd Immunity as the way of conquering Covid.

[cyril evans awaydays]

Sage predicted 250,000 deaths at the time apologies if it’s the incorrect documentation, perhaps you could post the reasons for the initial lockdown and figures quoted ( I’m sure you are acutely aware of what I was trying to say )

A risk assessment would have been undertaken, ( even something like have you had a cold in the last 28 days, are any family members displaying symptoms or high risk etc ).


Up to 100 people were at the party, not withstanding bar staff, security, and they would have been in contact with many taxi drivers taking them to and from the venue.

The people who attended would then have gone home to parents , children, grandparents etc.

The party held is not my concern ( as I wasn’t there ) but it appears that they were less concerned about the dangers to Covid compared to what they told the public to be at the time. I wonder why ?

As I said it was Neil Ferguson's Imperial College Advisory Group that came up with the 250k figure and was their estimate of what would happen if no restrictions were applied. Obviously they were hence the Sage documentation estimating 50k in the the 1st wave (if people paid poor regard to the restrictions). A factor reduction as a consequence of restrictions in plain to most but not it seems all.

I just don't understand the risk assessment point. These were people who made the rules and were in daily briefings and warnings to the general populace about their infringement. A number would have already had covid including Boris Johnson. These were people who thought themselves above the law.

I presume that your final point is a projection of the it's nothing more than a cold narrative on the day that we reach 175,000 deaths with Covid.

[TWGL1]

And your point is? You said there would have been risk assessments carried out, you're only guessing that and, frankly, with this Government under this Prime Minister, I would not be the least bit surprised if there wasn't. Even if there was, it was still a flagrant breaking of the rules which cannot be fobbed off this time as a work meeting - you need to cast your mind back to what it was like in May 2020, bring a bottle parties were not allowed if I remember rightly.

My point is this, If those with misgivings about the party had gone to the press then many of the emergency lockdown mandates which were voted in by all political parties would have been invalid.

This would have had an impact on compliance, at the time. I wonder how many of the public were fined doing the same things ?

[cyril evans awaydays]

My point is this, If those with misgivings about the party had gone to the press then many of the emergency lockdown mandates which were voted in by all political parties would have been invalid.

This would have had an impact on compliance, at the time. I wonder how many of the public were fined doing the same things ?

There is a different perspective. Two days after this party the allegations about Dominic Cummings and Barnard Castle hit the press. Johnson and the Tory Party rallied around him, we had that ridiculous press conference in the very same Downing St gardens that the parties took place where he said he was testing his eyesight and Cummings survived when many thought that not possible. The result was the hitherto strong levels of lockdown compliance weakened when people saw someone of power applying different rules.

I suspect that the reason Johnson and his cronies rallied around Cummings was because they feared if he was let go details of the parties would soon emerge and do for a few of them.

I would presume Cummings and his associates are in "Revenge is a dish best served cold" for his ultimate departure at the alleged behest of Johnson's wife. Who knows what else will filter out if this one doesn't finish him off!

[TWGL1]

There is a different perspective. Two days after this party the allegations about Dominic Cummings and Barnard Castle hit the press. Johnson and the Tory Party rallied around him, we had that ridiculous press conference in the very same Downing St gardens that the parties took place where he said he was testing his eyesight and Cummings survived when many thought that not possible. The result was the hitherto strong levels of lockdown compliance weakened when people saw someone of power applying different rules.

I suspect that the reason Johnson and his cronies rallied around Cummings was because they feared if he was let go details of the parties would soon emerge and do for a few of them.

I would presume Cummings and his associates are in "Revenge is a dish best served cold" for his ultimate departure at the alleged behest of Johnson's wife. Who knows what else will filter out if this one doesn't finish him off!

Perhaps the government’s £320m media payments have run dry :hehe

I suspect these stories will continue to surface for some time.

[Gofer Blue]

Impossible as it may seem, I think this latest exposure spells the death knell for Boris Johnston as P.M. He should do the honourable thing and fall on his sword before the outcome of the inquiry. He won't of course as it is not in his nature, but unless the inquiry is a total whitewash*, he will get his come-uppance anyway.

*According to those in the know it seems that the lady heading the inquiry is no mug, so hopefully this won't be the case.

[life on mars]

The blogger strikes again

"The May 20 party was first alluded to in a blog by the Prime Minister's former advisor Dominic Cummings on Friday."

I have suggested before the Labour should employ him to ensure they get a romping 80 seat victory the lad has form into tapping into the countries thinking .