FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Civil service drinking on the job
Civil service drinking on the job
Jump to: Newest in thread
Where I used to work attitudes changed over the years. 20 years ago you couldn't move in the pub just a short walk from our office on a Friday lunchtime for our staff. Prior to lockdown, whilst not actively discouraged, management used subtle methods, such as organising meetings for 1pm. HR also brought in a random testing programme, zero tolerance for drugs but legal driving limit for alcohol.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I worked in the civil service about 20 years ago and at it was totally the norm to booze at lunch! So weird as I'd never do that now and would be pretty shocked at someone else doing it so openly, but we were all pissed in the afternoon there! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I work in construction i remember the days nobody on site at lunchtime all in the pub now zero tolerance it seems to be allowed in downing Street during work hours and in Whitehall any civil service people on here can fill us in |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I worked in the civil service about 20 years ago and at it was totally the norm to booze at lunch! So weird as I'd never do that now and would be pretty shocked at someone else doing it so openly, but we were all pissed in the afternoon there! Remember it well"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I work in construction i remember the days nobody on site at lunchtime all in the pub now zero tolerance it seems to be allowed in downing Street during work hours and in Whitehall any civil service people on here can fill us in "
I work in the Civil Service & can assure you to drink/be d*unk at work is gross misconduct. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I work in construction i remember the days nobody on site at lunchtime all in the pub now zero tolerance it seems to be allowed in downing Street during work hours and in Whitehall any civil service people on here can fill us in
I work in the Civil Service & can assure you to drink/be d*unk at work is gross misconduct."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I work in construction i remember the days nobody on site at lunchtime all in the pub now zero tolerance it seems to be allowed in downing Street during work hours and in Whitehall any civil service people on here can fill us in
I work in the Civil Service & can assure you to drink/be d*unk at work is gross misconduct."
so all the people at the party's broke the rules regarding alcohol in the workplace |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No, any trace of alcohol is 7 year ban in the sector i work. Ive drilled this into my staff ive said if you have any doubt just dont come into work its not worth it   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I work in construction i remember the days nobody on site at lunchtime all in the pub now zero tolerance it seems to be allowed in downing Street during work hours and in Whitehall any civil service people on here can fill us in
I work in the Civil Service & can assure you to drink/be d*unk at work is gross misconduct.so all the people at the party's broke the rules regarding alcohol in the workplace "
What do you think? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I work in construction i remember the days nobody on site at lunchtime all in the pub now zero tolerance it seems to be allowed in downing Street during work hours and in Whitehall any civil service people on here can fill us in
I work in the Civil Service & can assure you to drink/be d*unk at work is gross misconduct.so all the people at the party's broke the rules regarding alcohol in the workplace
What do you think? "
could you bring a few bottles of wine into work say to your colleagues we have had a very hard week let's have a good drink and someone get the cheese and pizza i think you would be sacked |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Whether a party or a not-party, the only alternatives would seem to be:
(a) It was not a party, in which case those present were drinking alcohol during working hours, in contravention of civil service rules and should be subject to disciplinary action. It also represents misuse of working time that is paid for by taxpayers.
(b) It was not during working hours, but either at lunch time or after hours, in which case whether classed as a party or not, it was a gathering of people in contravention of the covid infection control laws. Those present should thus be subject to investigation by the metropolitan police. If the Met do not investigate in the presence of overwhelming evidence that has already become public, then the Met themselves are complicit in the crime. After police investigation passes the case to the crown prosecution service, given the overwhelming evidence, if the CPS fails to bring a prosecution then the CPS are complicit in the crime and it could be regarded as a complete collapse of the UK justice system.
Damned in one case, double damned in the other.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Whether a party or a not-party, the only alternatives would seem to be:
(a) It was not a party, in which case those present were drinking alcohol during working hours, in contravention of civil service rules and should be subject to disciplinary action. It also represents misuse of working time that is paid for by taxpayers.
(b) It was not during working hours, but either at lunch time or after hours, in which case whether classed as a party or not, it was a gathering of people in contravention of the covid infection control laws. Those present should thus be subject to investigation by the metropolitan police. If the Met do not investigate in the presence of overwhelming evidence that has already become public, then the Met themselves are complicit in the crime. After police investigation passes the case to the crown prosecution service, given the overwhelming evidence, if the CPS fails to bring a prosecution then the CPS are complicit in the crime and it could be regarded as a complete collapse of the UK justice system.
Damned in one case, double damned in the other.
"
Members of the public either not understanding the covid rules and thinking this was a breach or else working for employers who had different protocols to downing street is not the same as a law having been broken |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's depended on the job for me. If I've been on a production site then it's always a no, a great big multinational always has rules and it's always a no.
When I worked on an oil refinery having a bottle of wine in the boot of your car in the car park was a sackable offence - they took the no alcohol on site policy very, very seriously.
Working in a purely office location things tend to be more flexible, particularly with smaller businesses.
When I worked public sector a lot of supplier meetings would go on a very long time and would usually end up in a restaurant for dinner with a glass or two of wine (could only claim the first glass back on expenses though so they weren't rip-roaring nights). The booze wasn't on site, but we were technically drinking while working.
If the question you're really asking is about the photo of Johnson then I'd be more concerned that they were having a meeting with no notebooks, pens, laptops, documents of any sort etc and they were spread over the garden and terrace so would've had to shout between groups. It doesn't look like any meeting I've ever been a part of. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Whether a party or a not-party, the only alternatives would seem to be:
(a) It was not a party, in which case those present were drinking alcohol during working hours, in contravention of civil service rules and should be subject to disciplinary action. It also represents misuse of working time that is paid for by taxpayers.
(b) It was not during working hours, but either at lunch time or after hours, in which case whether classed as a party or not, it was a gathering of people in contravention of the covid infection control laws. Those present should thus be subject to investigation by the metropolitan police. If the Met do not investigate in the presence of overwhelming evidence that has already become public, then the Met themselves are complicit in the crime. After police investigation passes the case to the crown prosecution service, given the overwhelming evidence, if the CPS fails to bring a prosecution then the CPS are complicit in the crime and it could be regarded as a complete collapse of the UK justice system.
Damned in one case, double damned in the other.
Members of the public either not understanding the covid rules and thinking this was a breach or else working for employers who had different protocols to downing street is not the same as a law having been broken"
Correct!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's depended on the job for me. If I've been on a production site then it's always a no, a great big multinational always has rules and it's always a no.
When I worked on an oil refinery having a bottle of wine in the boot of your car in the car park was a sackable offence - they took the no alcohol on site policy very, very seriously.
Working in a purely office location things tend to be more flexible, particularly with smaller businesses.
When I worked public sector a lot of supplier meetings would go on a very long time and would usually end up in a restaurant for dinner with a glass or two of wine (could only claim the first glass back on expenses though so they weren't rip-roaring nights). The booze wasn't on site, but we were technically drinking while working.
If the question you're really asking is about the photo of Johnson then I'd be more concerned that they were having a meeting with no notebooks, pens, laptops, documents of any sort etc and they were spread over the garden and terrace so would've had to shout between groups. It doesn't look like any meeting I've ever been a part of."
More than one meeting in the garden (at least 3)? Discussions of familiar topics to be written up by one participant and circulated for agreement post meeting perhaps?
All the conjecture illustrates is how evidence based soley on personal interpretation and projected experience would make for a scary judicial system. Particularly when people are unwilling to see beyond their own preconceptions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *xhib12Man
over a year ago
Blyth |
Whether it's right or wrong why didn't the person taking the picture say something at the time if they had concerns? Why take a picture and hang on to it for months only to bring it out at this point in time? It seems we are being drip fed things against Boris a little at a time in an effort to cause maximum damage. I wonder if a certain Mr Cummings could possibly be behind it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Whether it's right or wrong why didn't the person taking the picture say something at the time if they had concerns? Why take a picture and hang on to it for months only to bring it out at this point in time? It seems we are being drip fed things against Boris a little at a time in an effort to cause maximum damage. I wonder if a certain Mr Cummings could possibly be behind it?"
Ah, an educated man! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I mean, if the real question is "was this a meeting or a party?" I think it's fairly clear.
The work/alcohol situation is much muddier water though. Remember that Parliament has a load of bars and restaurants which are open all day and night (and heavily subsidised by us lucky tax payers) and there is still a very 1800s culture of feasting and boozing during business, at Westminster. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don't drink at all and never have done. I don't have a problem with those who do but I have zero tolerance for anyone drinking during working hours or in fact at any time when it can have an adverse affect on job performance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No, as someone who has worked in the public sector for the best part of twenty years, we don't usually have work meetings with a bottle or two of wine. It would be grounds for disciplinary action. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If i even came in to work visibly hungover i would be sent home i can't even drink a bottle of beer at lunchtime I'm sure the same applies to a lot of people on this site it seems ok for civil service people to drink in work |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What I'm angry about is the excuse this morning that they "had had a hard day"... Not as hard as the nurses, care workers and police who had worked that day and then had to go home straight and weren't allowed to let of steam in the same way.
Plus, his finance and child were there... Its a bit far fetched to call that a work event. I wonder is she was vetted fo some of the discussions they would have had? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are you allowed drink in your place of work most companies have zero tolerance to drink and drugs police on duty firemen tfl staff loads more don't forget the cheese "
It's a good question OP, my grievance isn't necessarily about them having convivial meetings at work, but getting boozed up whilst doing it is unbelievable given how the drinking culture has changed in almost every other workplace! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I work in construction i remember the days nobody on site at lunchtime all in the pub now zero tolerance it seems to be allowed in downing Street during work hours and in Whitehall any civil service people on here can fill us in
I work in the Civil Service & can assure you to drink/be d*unk at work is gross misconduct.so all the people at the party's broke the rules regarding alcohol in the workplace "
You are missing the big picture. This is the PM you are referring to, the rules don't apply to them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Whether it's right or wrong why didn't the person taking the picture say something at the time if they had concerns? Why take a picture and hang on to it for months only to bring it out at this point in time? It seems we are being drip fed things against Boris a little at a time in an effort to cause maximum damage. I wonder if a certain Mr Cummings could possibly be behind it?
Ah, an educated man! "
I've not kept up to date with all the sordid details so don't claim to be an expert but two bits I have read about/watched left me with two different views. The guy doing the investigating stepping down because there has been some quiz thing at his office did read as though people were genuinely being respectful of the rules. His stepping aside was probably the sensible thing to do in the circumstances but I felt no outrage at what allegedly happened at his offices.
On the other hand, anyone who saw the two videos of Allegra Stratton cannot fail to realise that the people involved on that occasion were very well aware that they had at least bent the rules and that what had happened was at the very least morally wrong. I am a firm believer that people are innocent until proven guilty but for the Met to refuse to investigate on the basis of there being no evidence is utterly wrong. If they had said they carried out an investigation and found no evidence (assuming the investigating was done properly) that that is fair enough but to fail to investigate is utterly wrong and the public are right to be outraged.
Why is it all coming out now? Why are we being drip fed a list of indiscretions? Who knows, I wouldn't put it past Boris to have deliberately leaked it to undermine any calls for new restrictions - it clearly isn't going to cost him anything other than possibly a by-election.
More likely is a mix of reasons. Some may have been released at a certain time with a particular goal, the Daily Mirror which appears to have gathered most of the evidence is going to deliberately drip feed to get maximum sales from the incident. Staff who were unhappy at the time but didn't feel able to speak up may now be jumping on the bandwagon, there may even be some genuine remorse and guilt thrown in.
In general, with complex stories like these, I find anyone thinking they have found the "real" cause has probably ignored a dozen other factors that are equally as real and as valid that all played a part in the events unfolding as they did. We love neat narratives, x did y therfore z but life is never that neat.
Mr |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They were colleagues who were sharing a drink at the end of a working day. If they had been drinking tea noone would care. People are being irate because it "feels" like a double standard. They couldn't all work from home and so a larger get together rather than over teams from their desks might have been more appropriate. Number 10 is a residence as well as an office remember |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They were colleagues who were sharing a drink at the end of a working day. If they had been drinking tea noone would care. People are being irate because it "feels" like a double standard. They couldn't all work from home and so a larger get together rather than over teams from their desks might have been more appropriate. Number 10 is a residence as well as an office remember "
It doesn't just FEEL like a double standard, it absolutely is one. Remember that this particular part occurred right in the middle of the strictest lockdown restrictions. No rule of 6, no two people from two households. People were being charged with criminal offences because they took a cup of takeaway coffee to the park when they went out for their permitted daily exercise, and these lot - the ones that were creating and enforcing the restrictions banning social gatherings - were having a nice booze up with their mates after work. Frankly it doesn't matter if they were having wine and cheese or tea and cakes at their party, they were flagrantly breaking the law and refusal to hold them to account is enormously corrupt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What I'm angry about is the excuse this morning that they "had had a hard day"... Not as hard as the nurses, care workers and police who had worked that day and then had to go home straight and weren't allowed to let of steam in the same way.
Plus, his finance and child were there... Its a bit far fetched to call that a work event. I wonder is she was vetted fo some of the discussions they would have had? "
This. Some healthcare staff had moved out of their family home to protect them so were living alone in hotels or hospital accommodation when not at work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *xhib12Man
over a year ago
Blyth |
"Whether it's right or wrong why didn't the person taking the picture say something at the time if they had concerns? Why take a picture and hang on to it for months only to bring it out at this point in time? It seems we are being drip fed things against Boris a little at a time in an effort to cause maximum damage. I wonder if a certain Mr Cummings could possibly be behind it?
Ah, an educated man!
I've not kept up to date with all the sordid details so don't claim to be an expert but two bits I have read about/watched left me with two different views. The guy doing the investigating stepping down because there has been some quiz thing at his office did read as though people were genuinely being respectful of the rules. His stepping aside was probably the sensible thing to do in the circumstances but I felt no outrage at what allegedly happened at his offices.
On the other hand, anyone who saw the two videos of Allegra Stratton cannot fail to realise that the people involved on that occasion were very well aware that they had at least bent the rules and that what had happened was at the very least morally wrong. I am a firm believer that people are innocent until proven guilty but for the Met to refuse to investigate on the basis of there being no evidence is utterly wrong. If they had said they carried out an investigation and found no evidence (assuming the investigating was done properly) that that is fair enough but to fail to investigate is utterly wrong and the public are right to be outraged.
Why is it all coming out now? Why are we being drip fed a list of indiscretions? Who knows, I wouldn't put it past Boris to have deliberately leaked it to undermine any calls for new restrictions - it clearly isn't going to cost him anything other than possibly a by-election.
More likely is a mix of reasons. Some may have been released at a certain time with a particular goal, the Daily Mirror which appears to have gathered most of the evidence is going to deliberately drip feed to get maximum sales from the incident. Staff who were unhappy at the time but didn't feel able to speak up may now be jumping on the bandwagon, there may even be some genuine remorse and guilt thrown in.
In general, with complex stories like these, I find anyone thinking they have found the "real" cause has probably ignored a dozen other factors that are equally as real and as valid that all played a part in the events unfolding as they did. We love neat narratives, x did y therfore z but life is never that neat.
Mr "
Very well put |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I've read an article on it saw the pic. About the only thing they got right was being outside. Government/civil service are considered key workers. So they have that excuse.
But the rules at that time for the work place, were that you don't meet or gather in person unless absolutely necessary. And that there should be 2 metre distancing at all times.
I'm not really that outraged to be honest. I don't like Johnson never have, this is just one more thing to add on the growing s**t pile |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
. 
