What I find here is: 1. a fundamental principle: employers have a duty to reduce workplace risk to the lowest reasonably practicable level by taking preventative measures.
2. a rule of keeping people 2m apart "wherever possible" (page 10) 3. the duty to take mitigating actions that are not rules but advice: "the recommendations in the rest of this document are ones you should consider …"
Hence this is not even a normative text. It’s made of pieces of advice: “recommendations”.
Among them:
- page 14: Holding meetings outdoors whenever possible
- page 15: Using safe outside areas for breaks.
- page 15: Encouraging workers to bring their own food
A search for “party” or “parties” in the document gives “No results found”. "Parties" are not mentioned: not forbidden, not defined. For all the Cummings' fury about that word, it’s an irrelevant qualification.
There is nothing in this Guidance that brings to the conclusion that the “socially distanced drinks” in the garden mentioned in the infamous mail (as a one-off pause from working) were forbidden. Work “breaks” were contemplated and advised to be held in outside areas.
And it is obvious: it’s not the ’20 Prohibition, it’s a Covid pandemic. There was no reason to prohibit drinks or fun or people in the same work bubble to be allowed to relax and have chat and drinks outdoors.
A puritanical attitude in the press has framed any joy or fun as forbidden, just because people (including No10 workers) were forbidden to enter a hospital Covid ward to visit their loved ones. But that's not in the Workplace Guidance.
No10 of Downing Street is Crown Property and it is up to the Civil Service to apply the Guidance and manage the workplace and the staff. Certainly not the job of the PM.
This is the full statement by the PM to the HoC on the 6pm event on the 20th of May 2020. "I believed implicitly that this was a work event".
This is the way Cumming, in his blog, describes the work habits of Downing Street in the 2020 spring and summer (referring to the 15/5/2020 meeting in the garden captured by the leaked image).
In the same post, Cummings suggests that the 20/5/2020 mail invitation to "socially distanced drinks" was (in his opinion) against the rules. But does not explain why and what was the noticeable difference between these drinks and the usual meetings-with-drinks in the garden.
Cumming's description of the work habits in the garden during 2020 Spring makes it credible that the PM actually did think the "socially distanced drinks" in the garden were a work event or an allowed work break event, not so different from what they were used to do.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
How smart was Cummings' latest move? He may have overplayed his hand in thinking he can force Tory MPs to dance at his tune. telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/…
For a man caricatured as an evil genius, there is a distinct lack of genius in Cummings’s evil plan to get rid of the PM. As MPs congregated in Parliament on Tuesday, there was a growing consensus that Cummings, pushing Boris to the brink, may now have overplayed his hand.
His zealous offer to testify on oath that the PM ignored warnings about drinks in No 10 was meant to be a coup de grâce. Instead, it helped shore up the PM’s precarious position: if MPs are forced to choose sides between Cummings and Johnson, there will only ever be one outcome.
SIR – I’ve read of Cons. MPs supposedly inundated with messages and emails from constituents ... calling for the PM to quit.
As Chairman of the Spelthorne Conservative Association, I haven’t had a single message, email, letter or phone call from members criticising Boris.
A local Conservative councillor told me she was rung on Friday by a journalist who asked whether she’d like to be interviewed on television. She politely declined. The journalist sighed, saying she had contacted over 200 Tory activists, none of whom would criticise the PM.
... Based on my own experience these past few days, and having spoken to other Conservative association chairs, most Conservative activists see no desire for change.
Speaking to the BBC's Sunday Morning programme, Mr Dowden said: "I can assure you the PM is both very contrite and deeply apologetic for what happened. More importantly, he is determined to address the underlying culture in Downing Street.
He will clean up an entrenched habit of drinking and rule-breaking. He could put in place a "booze ban" in No 10, bringing an end to the "wine time Fridays" reportedly held by advisers and civil servants every week.
Senior civil servants including Martin Reynolds may be sacked. Chief of staff, Dan Rosenfield, is also thought to be at risk of losing his job.
Global crunch in gas supplies and soaring gas prices boost ‘green’ hydrogen and make 'blue' hydrogen production far more expensive than its cleaner green alternative telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/…
Hydrogen does not generate CO2 when burned, so it can replace fossil fuels in a range of uses such as heavy machinery and even home heating. The 'green' hydrogen is also produced without generating CO2, unlike 'blue' hydrogen, made from natural gas.
Blue hydrogen (from fossil fuels, with carbon capture) is cheaper than green hydrogen (from renewables) and, until recently, the crossover point was projected at the end of this decade.
China is the final giant piece of a surprisingly successful #COP26. Don't believe Greta blah blah blah: by Friday night or in the early hours of Saturday a deal that brings a 1.6-1.7-degree world is within plausible range.
China got what it wanted at Cop26. The bilateral deal with the US underscores that only two countries are shaping events in the 21st century. The regal recognition of Sino-US parity is what matters most to Xi.
What also matters is that nobody should succeed in telling China how to manage its internal affairs, or mark its homework, or dictate the pace of decommissioning coal plants. With that point established, CO2 cuts are no longer such a problem.
Climate activists are weaponizing human rights laws to force decarbonisation without a realistic roadmap. We cannot replace the legacy infrastructure overnight.
The climate movement has found its killer weapon in the war on fossils: it is mobilising human rights law to force through drastic decarbonisation, and judges are playing along. The critical ingredient that makes it possible is the “soft” law of COP climate agreements.
There has been a cascade of judgments based on the UN Convention, the ECHR, or national constitutions. They are compelling governments to act faster than they had planned, or are capable of doing without resorting to revolutionary economic and social measures.