Money, money, money: why doesn’t Boris Johnson spend some of his own, instead of ours, for a change?
Boris Johnson has sacked the legal team selected for him by the government, after its members provided information to the Cabinet Office that led to a new criminal investigation
And now…
Taxpayers are set to be billed more than a million pounds for Boris Johnson ’s new lawyers, after he sacked the government-provided legal team defending him at the Covid-19 inquiry.
In fact, taxpayers aren’t paying for it – other than indirectly. It’s public money, and if the government wants us to pay it, it will need to tax the money back from us. That hasn’t happened yet.
That being said: I don’t see any reason for the public to continue paying for lawyers that public servants didn’t appoint.
I mean,
Boris Johnson's new lawyers to cost taxpayers more than £1m for his Partygate defence.
Johnson made £6m last yr. Just been to US, giving six-figure sum speeches.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
On the same day he threatened to sue the Cabinet Office for handing to the police evidence suggesting he had broken Covid-19 no-contact rules during lockdown, the official Covid inquiry has threatened legal action against the government if it does not release his unredacted WhatsApp messages and diary entries.
The Cabinet Office apparently doesn’t want to do that.
This puts the Cabinet Office in an awkward position too, as it may seem hypocritical for it to provide Johnson’s diaries to the police while refusing to provide other information to the Covid inquiry.
According to the Cabinet Office, some of the material demanded is “unambiguously irrelevant” to the inquiry – but the inquiry’s chairwoman, Baroness Hallett, has responded by pointing out that passages initially assessed by the Cabinet Office to be irrelevant included discussions between the prime minister and his advisers about the enforcement of Covid regulations by the Metropolitan Police during protests following the murder of Sarah Everard.
This is clearly relevant to the inquiry. Baroness Hallett is quoted by the BBC as having said this was “not a promising start”.
And it undermines Boris Johnson because it demonstrates that documents he has provided to the Cabinet Office contain information that should rightly be divulged to those involved in the various investigations into his activities while he was prime minister.
If he does take legal action he will probably lose, based on the facts that have already become available.
If the Covid inquiry takes legal action it will probably win, on the same basis.
Maybe This Writer has been watching too many old episodes of Yes, Minister, but it seems to me that this sequence of events is fortuitous for the Cabinet Office.
It justifies the release of the diaries to the police, and make possible the release of the other material to the Covid inquiry, no matter what the decision on its relevance was – or who made it.
Yes, the Cabinet Office may lose face to a small degree.
But Boris Johnson is the real loser here. Or so it seems to me.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Partygate: here’s a shot of Boris Johnson at a Downing Street party that took place during Covid-19 lockdown. Did he mislead Parliament about them?
This could be the stupidest blunder in a lifetime of stupid blunders for Boris Johnson.
It seems that, because his defence against allegations that he misled Parliament is being bankrolled by the public (with around a quarter of a million pounds spent so far), Johnson’s lawyers have to provide the Cabinet Office with all information relevant to his behaviour during the times concerned.
Such information was contained in his diary – but after reading it, officials reported Johnson to the police in both London and Thames Valley.
Apparently it contains information on further breaches of the rule against mixing with other people during the Covid-19 lockdowns between June 2020 and May 2021.
Both police services refer to breaches of the Health Protection Regulations.
Here’s some meat to cover the bones of this story:
Just to explain, because the Cabinet Office is paying Boris Johnson's multi-hundred-thousand-pound legal bills, it is technically the client in his defence against the privileges cttee. His lawyers are therefore obliged to submit all material they obtain to the CabOff. Its… https://t.co/j5Kv3PkLIY
Some of us haven’t moved on from his libelling of Jeremy Corbyn, back in 2018 (his apology for doing so remains the most-shared tweet ever published by a Conservative MP). Or from his suggestion that the online reporter who revealed the libel should be castrated. Or, indeed, from his desire to starve hungry children by denying the extension of free school meals in holidays during the Covid-19 lockdown periods.
Perhaps Mr Bradley should have kept his mouth shut.
Then again, perhaps Johnson should have kept his mouth shut too, when he said he had no knowledge of any Covid-19 rule breaches involving him.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Boris Johnson: he loves money – especially if it belongs to somebody else.
Boris Johnson’s defence against allegations that he misled Parliament over all the parties in Downing Street while the rest of us were in Covid-19 lockdown has cost the public purse £245,000 – so far.
This Writer is not quite sure who signed off on the plan to use our money to pay his lawyers – the Treasury is denying that anybody there had anything to do with it.
And that’s strange, because
The Treasury’s spending rulebook says its consent should always be sought for costs “which set precedents, are novel, contentious or could cause repercussions elsewhere in the public sector”.
The BBC asked the Cabinet Office if this would apply to Mr Johnson’s legal bills, in a freedom of information (FOI) request. We were told the Treasury was not required to approve all spending decisions.
That’s a contradiction, of course. And those responsible seem to know it.
The Cabinet Office and a source close to Mr Johnson argued there is a long-standing precedent that former ministers are supported with legal representation.
But former senior civil servants disputed this, telling the BBC that it would not normally apply to parliamentary inquiries, like the one into Mr Johnson.
Johnson doesn’t need the financial help – he’s made £5.5 million from extra-curricular activities since he was forced to stand down as prime minister last year.
He gave evidence to the Commons Privileges Committee’s Partygate inquiry on March 22, and now we’re all waiting for its verdict, while Johnson’s legal bill skyrockets.
I asked the reason for the delay last week, after it was suggested that the result was being held back for political reasons to do with the local elections. Can you imagine how badly the Tories would have fared if the committee had found against him, before election day?
The response was that, after the verbal evidence had been taken, the committee had requested and received written evidence – and was mulling this over.
Well, those MPs had better make their decision soon, or the Treasury might not be able to cover the cost.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
A reminder: here’s Republic chief executive Graham Smith being arrested for not breaking any laws, by at least eight police officers.
There can’t be any doubt now that the big story of the Coronation weekend is the abuse of the new Public Order Act by police, to arrest and detain people who had every right to protest against a monarchy they do not want.
Graham Smith, chief executive of the anti-monarch group Republic, was jailed early on Saturday morning, on suspicion of conspiring to cause a public nuisance by disrupting the celebrations on London’s streets.
He has made it clear that neither he nor anybody else in his group had any intention to break the law.
Indeed, Republic has made it clear that it co-operated fully with the Metropolitan Police before the event even started:
Graham Smith, speaking for Republic on 3 May, said: “We have had two meetings with the Met police, and numerous phone conversations. They have repeatedly said they have no concerns about Republic’s plans.”
Mr Smith was released on Saturday but police retained his phone and luggage straps that they had claimed could have been used for “locking on” – attaching protesters to street furniture to cause disruption.
These items were returned on Monday evening, when officers admitted they were not able to find any reason to charge Mr Smith with a crime. Here are his comments:
We have just been told that the police will be taking no further action. This has been a disgraceful episode and we will be speaking to lawyers about taking legal action. I also expect a full inquiry into why they repeatedly lied to us and who authorised the arrests.
— Graham Smith 🇺🇦 🏳️🌈 (@GrahamSmith_) May 8, 2023
This evening three Met police officers visited my home to hand back my phone and the luggage straps. They apologised while wearing a body cam. I made it clear the apology is not accepted as we will be taking further action. https://t.co/BwPxw2aNx5
— Graham Smith 🇺🇦 🏳️🌈 (@GrahamSmith_) May 8, 2023
Do you believe the claim of regret by the police? Richard Murphy, of Funding the Future, doesn’t:
I do not believe the police. Politely, they are asking us to believe in yet more fairytales if they expect us to think that these arrests were a mistake.
They announced zero tolerance of protest in advance of the coronation.
They got new powers enacted days in advance of the coronation to arrest without reason.
Republic had been completely open and honest about their intentions, I know. I get their emails. And so there was no new “intelligence” for the police to act on to justify their actions, as they and those seeking to excuse them (Ed Balls, I am looking at you) claimed. There was just a police conspiracy to appease Suella Braverman by showing zero tolerance that backfired spectacularly in both the UK and around the world.
And now they have not only had to eat humble pie, because their actions were so obviously unjustified and unjustifiable – because not only was the protest peaceful but there was never a conspiracy that it should be anything else – but they have now paved the way for rightful demands that use of this law be restricted until such time as it can be repealed.
The only impediment to that happening is Labour’s support for these laws – which looks most especially crass now.
I fear Mr Murphy’s hope for Labour may be forlorn. More on this below.
This morning (Tuesday, May 9), Mr Smith was interviewed by Kay Burley of Sky News, who did her level best to undermine his assertions – and he made mincemeat of her. Fair play to her for posting the clip, though!
Kay: Do you want to tell me about the officers coming round to your house or not?
This Writer cannot understand why Burley kept harping on about the cost of the Coronation. I had heard the £250m line too – and whether it cost that much or the more modest £100m figure that has been more widely-quoted, it’s still money that could have been put to better use in a country whose people are struggling financially because the government has sucked all the money out of it.
And she was unable to stop Mr Smith from making his point that “there was no evidence of any intent or capacity to commit any offence” and “no suggestion of wrongdoing… at all”.
While Burley was putting forward a pro-Establishment view, other journalists went very strongly the other way. Here’s Michael Crick – and I know he’s problematic too, but his words are worth hearing – on LBC:
'This is the sort of thing that goes on in Moscow!'
Sadly, it doesn’t matter what the commenterati say about it; the political elite in Westminster have closed ranks to deny that anything untoward happened at all – and they certainly won’t consider revising or repealing the vague law that allowed this scandal to happen.
Here’s prime minister Rishi Sunak. First he said he supported what the police did:
“The police are operationally independent of Government, they’ll make these decisions based on what they think is best,” he told broadcasters in Hertfordshire.
“Actually I’m grateful to the police and everyone who played a part in ensuring that this weekend has gone so well, so successfully and so safely, that was an extraordinary effort by so many people and I’m grateful to them for all their hard work.”
Then he repeated his assertions to TV reporters:
Q: You supported the police, but yesterday they apologised to the protesters… doesn't the public order act need looking at?
Rishi Sunak: People have the right to protest freely
Q: People do have the right to protest, but these people didn't have the right… they were stopped pic.twitter.com/P6RE5X19L4
It’s interesting that Sunak claimed the arrests were “operational decisions made by the police at the time”. I wonder if we can have that confirmed? I’ll try to contact the Met and see what response I get.
Meanwhile, here’s Tory MP Peter Bone, who supports his prime ministers point of view, having his derriere turned into burger meat and handed back to him by Marina Purkiss:
Tory MP, Peter Bone is all for freedom of speech…
He is also all for the met police preemptively arresting protesters.
Lisa Nandy, on the morning media round, made it clear that her party sides with the Tories and repeated the assertion (although not in as many words) that Labour wants to be able to clamp down on protesters just as hard as the Tories appear to have done:
If you are worried about human rights, civil rights, the right to free speech and the right to protest, you cannot expect – on the evidence – that Starmer’s Govt will be much better than the grimly repressive Tories https://t.co/mGDQ2vguJv
Even Barry Gardiner, usually excellent at presenting his party in a reasonable light, struggled in a discussion of the scandal on the BBC’s Politics Live:
And what does Labour think of Republic, and the right of anti-monarchists to be able to present their point of view?
Sir Keir Starmer has proscribed the anti-monarchy group Republic
Labour Party members are now forbidden to affiliate with the group, and they face being expelled from the party
The Labour leader continues his authoritarian attacks against democracy within the party https://t.co/jHIVcb9Uhj
John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor, questioned the rules this week, saying: “I can’t see that allowing local parties to participate in groups like these is going to bring down civilisation as we know it.
“A form of institutional paranoia has emerged in the higher echelons of the party’s bureaucracy which has led to a level of control-freakery in relation to the activities of local CLPs which borders on farce.”
Another MP and former shadow frontbencher, Clive Lewis, who will address anti-monarchy protesters staging a demonstration against the coronation in London on Saturday, said he had “serious misgivings” about the rule preventing affiliation with Republic, adding there was a long history of branches having relationships with democratic campaigning organisations.
Lewis said: “It feels wrong, and sits uncomfortably with me. I think a lot of people will find it problematic, even people who are going to be supportive of the coronation and the king. Many of them will also be people who believe in freedom of speech, freedom of expression and having an open, honest political debate about the future of this country.
“If you join the Labour party, you often joined because you want to make a difference to make your country better, and those are the kind of people who will want to ask questions about the kind of democracy we have.”
But Starmer seems to feel he has to act this way because it might win him some votes – despite the fact that it makes him (yet again) a hypocrite:
Labour under Keir Starmer’s leadership has attempted to underline its patriotism in order to reconnect with voters in “red wall” seats. In the past, Starmer had advocated abolishing the monarchy.
Meanwhile…
Littering is an actual crime and carries a fixed penalty charge of £150. @metpoliceuk how many fixed penalty fines for littering did you give out this weekend? pic.twitter.com/1qYS3leNyZ
Yes, littering is indeed a crime, but it seems nobody has been punished for it.
Instead, the police concentrated their resources on persecuting people who had not broken the law at all.
It really is the big story of the weekend: supporters of the monarchy attacked, arrested, and imprisoned dozens of people on the day their icon was crowned – not for any crime, but simply for having a different point of view.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Partygate: here’s a shot of Boris Johnson at a Downing Street party that took place during Covid-19 lockdown. Did he mislead Parliament about them?
A report by MPs on whether Boris Johnson misled Parliament over the so-called ‘Partygate’ scandal has been delayed, not because it might interfere with the local elections, but because the inquiry received new evidence.
That is what the House of Commons’ Privileges Committee told This Writer today (May 2).
In response to a query prompted by a press report claiming that there were concerns that the committee’s final report might unduly influence voting in the local elections, a spokesperson stated:
Since taking oral evidence from Mr Johnson on 22 March the Committee has sought and received further written evidence.
The timing of publication of the Committee’s final report will be announced on its website in due course.
Is there time for media speculation on what the “further written evidence” was and how it might affect the outcome?
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Silenced: Boris Johnson may have said the wrong things about the so-called ‘Partygate’ affair but has the committee investigating it been silenced in a way that may affect the result of the local elections on May 4, 2023?
It’s being suggested that the House of Commons’ Privileges Committee is sitting on its verdict in the Boris Johnson ‘Partygate’ inquiry – for fear that it may affect the result of the local elections:
If it is thought that the release of certain news might inform people’s decision as to how to vote in an election, should that news be withheld?
If the report is ready, should it not be published immediately? If it is being deliberately delayed, to prevent it from affecting the way people vote in the election, how would it reasonably be expected to do so? Thursday’s poll is a local election and the fate of Boris Johnson has no discernible impact on it.
In short, if the report is being delayed, is it not for political reasons that should not play a part in any decision-making?
Furthermore, people in Scotland and Wales have just as much of an interest in the verdict as those in England and Northern Ireland, and don’t have any elections that could be affected. Why should they have to wait?
This Site has contacted the Privileges Committee to request clarification and will bring you the response as soon as possible.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Is it really a year since Michelle Mone was first investigated over her connection with PPE Medpro, the company she recommended to provide Personal Protective Equipment to the UK government during the Covid crisis, that then failed to come up with the goods?
The government said the equipment wasn’t up to scratch, although the firm reckoned it passed inspections. Baroness Mone and her family allegedly made £65 million from Medpro’s profits after she pushed it up the illegal “VIP lane” by which Tories could recommend their friends for public cash.
It's a whole year since Tory MICHELLE MONE & her husband had their houses & offices raided by the @NCA_UK re PPE Medpro.
Bugger all has happened since. No pressure from this gov, why would there be?
This Site heard about this scandal in November last year, and shortly afterwards, Mone took a leave of absence from the House of Lords.
As far as I know, she’s still away. Has anybody heard of her since?
And, is this the reason there has been no progress on this case – that the woman at the heart of it has disappeared?
Is Michelle Mone the new Lord Lucan?
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
The Empire Windrush brought many people to the UK to help rebuild the country after World War II. If it had still been in service a few years ago, the Tories would have been trying to use it to deport them all again.
The Tory government simply won’t do right by the victims of the Windrush scandal:
On 6 April, Britain’s government faced legal action by campaigners over its refusal to accept key recommendations made by an inquiry into the Windrush scandal, which affected thousands of Black post-war immigrants.
Suella Braverman in January refused to accept three of the changes previously promised by the Conservative government.
The … independent inquiry issued 30 recommendations, which Braverman’s predecessor agreed to adopt in full.
However, Braverman rejected more powers for Britain’s independent chief inspector of borders. She also refused a commissioner to safeguard migrants’ interests, and the holding of reconciliation events.
The group Black Equity Organisation, created last year to campaign for the civil rights of Black Britons, said it was seeking a judicial review of the home secretary’s decision.
There was no immediate comment from [the Home Office] as to the legal action.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
I could almost put this article out with just the tweets, and you might get the message.
Let’s start with Boris Johnson’s evidence to the Commons Privileges Committee on Wednesday (I still haven’t watched it all because not enough of you are reading my articles to let me pause writing them for a moment and do something else!), and most particularly the reaction of his (publicly-funded lawyer):
Let’s couple that with a reaction from the social media, in which Damo points out that Johnson’s defence that he ought to know what was going on in the house where he lived is defeated by the fact that he wasn’t living at 10 Downing Street; his flat was next door:
Amazingly, though, staunch Johnson loyalists aren’t having any of it.
They’ve been all over the media, trying to brainwash us all into thinking that his evidence session was a massive success.
And now (forgive me) a double dose of Jacob Rees-Mogg:
“Boris Johnson today has won in the court of public opinion.”
Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg tells @krishgm it’s “quite clear” the former PM told the truth in his responses to Partygate allegations “as he understood it at the time”. pic.twitter.com/OkjNkezDP9
Oh very dearie me Jakey! Has "nanny" not told you – your behaviour & your opinions seem to be based largely on your late father's editorials as Editor of the Times from '67 to '81. Things *have* moved on since then you know ! https://t.co/kENV7xxnYn
I watched with increasing contempt, as Johnson defended himself #PrivilegesCommittee If he had wanted to show his appreciation to staff -he could have stood and clapped for them -then frozen their wages – the same appreciation that was shown to NHS & other Public Sector workers.
Some of us had personal experience of dealing with Johnson, and were able to provide eyewitness evidence about his lies…
"You would go and see Boris Johnson and tell him something. The next day you're listening to him on the radio, and he's telling the radio listeners, that you told him something else. It's quite alarming actually."
Well, if the following is any yardstick, he’s worried.
He has twigged that the committee exonerating him might be a forlorn hope and he might get that dreaded 10-day suspension, leading to a recall motion from Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituents and a by-election.
So – well, look:
Johnson to intensify campaigning in his Uxbridge constituency – promising hospital, police station etc – in a desperate attempt to stave off his suspension -really taking Uxbridge Public for fools ! pic.twitter.com/G2MkFLvfBN
It’s just a tweet, but I reckon there might be some truth to it.
Last word has to be praise for the Yorkshire Post, whose editorial staff put together an image for that paper’s cover – the now-infamous one showing Johnson raising a glass at (I believe) Lee Cain’s leaving event – composed of photographs of people who were staying home while the Downing Street parties were taking place, because they had been told it would save lives.
Here’s the tweet; you’ll already have seen the image at the top of this article.
BORIS JOHNSON
Well done Yorkshire. 👏
🔴This image of Boris Johnson partying is made up of people who stayed home to save lives.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
