17th January 2022
“Implicitly” is a mischievous word, a Puck of a word.
And those who say and hear such words must be careful, else this Puck of a word can cause unexpected confusion.
It is the word of the moment in British politics.
Last week, the Prime Minister told the House of Commons:
“When I went into that garden just after 6 o’clock on 20 May 2020, to thank groups of staff before going back into my office 25 minutes later to continue working, I believed implicitly that this was a work event, but with hindsight, I should have sent everyone back inside. ”
Now what was the naughty “implicitly” doing in that sentence?
The word must be there for some purpose, as this was something carefully worded that the Prime Minister read out.
Read that sentence again without the word:
“When I went into that garden just after 6 o’clock on 20 May 2020, to thank groups of staff before going back into my office 25 minutes later to continue working, I believed that this was a work event, but with hindsight, I should have sent everyone back inside. ”
This sentence is intelligible – and had he believed it was a work event, that is all that needed to be said.
But someone added the word “implicitly”.
Why?
It is not an especially legalistic word – so, although the sentence was plainly lawyered, it is not there for a specific legal purpose – or at least not one I can identify.
But presumably it is there to change meaning from the plain “I believed” into something else, something more vague and perhaps evasive.
A Westminster/Whitehall insider told me that the use of “implicitly believed” was very much the “don’t ask, don’t tell” of workplace gatherings.
A sort of plausible ambiguity – to let you get away with things that you would know, had you considered it, would not be the case.
In this way it would be a coded synonym for ‘conveniently’.
And the word seems to matter: for it has been repeated by Number 10 and other ministers – and so it is the line to take.
Number 10 spokesman now issuing a blanket denial that Boris Johnson was warned about No 10 lockdown garden party in advance
'It is untrue that the PM was warned about event in advance. He believed implicitly that this was a work event'
— Steven Swinford (@Steven_Swinford) January 16, 2022
When politicians add an apparently unnecessary word to their answers there’s usually a reason for it. Any lawyers out there got theories about why Boris Johnson & his ministers keep adding the word “implicitly” to what he believed & thought at the time of the No 10 parties ? https://t.co/BurFtPwmuK
— Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) January 17, 2022
So: the word makes a difference to meaning – and it is a word that matters so much that its use is being forced upon press officers and ministers.
Maybe it means that the Prime Minister cannot show any explicit evidence that he had that view (or expressed that view), and so assumed it.
Here is Adam Wagner, the leading authority on the coronavirus regulations.
Also, how do you believe something implicitly? Is the point that he didn't really understand the rules he had set? Or not particularly engaged with them?
— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) January 12, 2022
Or maybe Johnson is seeking to deftly avoid any legal liability?
… it is very important indeed that he did not think it was a party at the time, was not warned and only "in hindsight" has he seen any issues, and "technically" it may have been lawful under the regulations, which is what he said to parliament.
— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) January 16, 2022
Who knows.
But what is certain is that it matters to Johnson – and that he believes in this phraseology, well, implicitly.
Imp-licit – “a devil made it legal”
— David QC (@DavidMuttering) January 16, 2022
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
My 2 cents: Adding ‘implicitly’ suggests that he believed it without having turned his mind to it.
The, ahem, implication is that this is a belief he held even though many would say it was an unreasonable belief. When the PM turns his mind to something obviously he doesn’t end up with an unreasonable belief. But if he believes something implicitly, without having turned his mind to it, it may well be unreasonable, i.e. something he would himself describe as unreasonable once he does turn his mind to it.
In this way, the usual assumption that people don’t hold implausible/unreasonable beliefs is rebutted. (Or, at least, that’s what he hopes.)
Hi David: excellent comment and analysis: can I reblog this at the blog I run – Shiraz Socialist (Second Run) https://shirazsocialism.wordpress.com – naturally with acknowledgement and a link?
Of course, as long as no one thinks I am a socialist!
Many thanks! I’ll make it clear that no-one should jump to any such a conclusion!
I think this response sums it up nicely.
“implicitly” does add a very important legal dimension to the denial; definitionally, it means “without justification or qualification”. If, at some point, there is evidence produced to suggest that, in all good faith, he would have reasonably concluded that the party he attended was primarily social in nature and little to do with government business, and someone points out that he had lied about his assessment at the dispatch box, then he can point out that he actually claimed that it was an implicit belief – that he had not given the matter deep enough consideration to come to the most logical conclusion.
My explanation is in line with your statement:
Maybe it means that the Prime Minister cannot show any explicit evidence that he had that view (or expressed that view), and so assumed it.
For me, the word is used to counter the possible question: “Why did you think it was a work event; did you not ask anyone?”
He then retorts: “I didn’t think to as I believed implicitly that it was a work event.”
A wonderful piece of analysis, thank you. An alternative definition of “implicit” might be “without giving it a moment’s thought.”
Is there a distinction between ‘implicitly’ and ‘impliedly’? What reasonably was a possible implication of the time and circumstances?
And, with serious matters of pith and moment needing attention, do I care?
‘I implicitly believed’ = ‘I assumed’? It would go with ‘I was repeatedly assured that no rules were broken’. The adverb sets up a fall-guy who he never imagined would authorise something illegal and on whose unstated assurance he hence ‘implicitly’ relied. Breaking the rules was, of course, unthinkable and therefore did not happen.
Precisely.
Yes. They wanted words that blurred the movement and state of the great brain, so that no real intention or active knowledge – and hence guilt — could be attributed. Both “believe” and ““’implicitly” seem to distance Johnson from responsibility for what he really knew, compared to assume, or understand or think. It tries to muddy the otherwise irresistible idea that he obviously knew he was going to a party, to which he knew he had been invited, and for which invitation his private secretary had obviously sought his approval, if the assistant wasn’t simply carrying out his instruction in the first place.
We are, of course, in a desperate if comic state, that we need an enquiry to find out if the people who work in no 10, under the attentive care of the police, went to one or many parties.
Nick Robinson certainly thought the word was important as he made poor* Zahawi tie himself in knots trying to explain what it meant.
* I believe he’s actually the richest member of Cabinet!
If the BBC was not in such a perilous place right now, I would have liked Robinson to conclude “So you can’t tell me what ‘implicitly’ means in this context, and yet you used it as if it was your own thought! How much are Cabinet Ministers paid again?”
Most likely he meant “I believed that this was implicitly a work event”, but in moving that word back to make the declaration sound more rhythmic and emphatic he made it seem sneaky and weazely!
It means a built-in belief. No external evidence to justify the belief is required.
One standard meaning of ‘implicitly’ is ‘absolutely, without reservation’, as in ‘I trust him implicitly’.
Thanks for the discussion, I have been wondering about this ever since I heard it.
I think there is another reason why Johnson and his lawyers like the word: that it has another, different dictionary meaning, which is something like ‘absolutely’ or ‘unreservedly’ (as in ‘I trust [a certain person] implicitly’). This sounds very reassuring, whereas the actual sense in which the word is used is that he didn’t have an explicit basis for his alleged belief.
There is no doubt that the wording of his (non-)apology was very carefully crafted, but I think most people have now seen straight through it anyway. How ridiculous is it to claim that you have attended an event and only later realised that it was a party?
It’s like his insistence that he hadn’t seen the PPS’s email. That might be literally true, but there can be no doubt that the PPS would only have sent it out because he believed, or more than likely knew, that the Prime Minister approved the party and perhaps even ordered it to take place.
Four definitions of ‘implicitly’ in OED, (two obsolete).
1.a. By implication; impliedly, inferentially.
[1.b. Not professedly or intentionally. Obsolete.
2. In an involved or confused manner. Obsolete.]
3. With implicit faith, confidence, submission, etc.; unquestioningly.
It looks to me as if PM[‘s lawyer] may have intended definition 3.
As you say, not a ‘legalistic’ term, but perhaps, when interpreted by a legal mind, one thinks of implicit -v- express, and thus definition 1.a. not the more colloquial definition 3.
I think it means, to an extent, that someone implied, by sending the invitation to people who work at No 10, that it was a ‘work event’ and was not therefore worthy of critical analysis as to it’s conformance with COVID regulations applying to the outer world beyond No 10. Thus the PM, in receipt of – and probably pre-approving – the message thought that it was OK to go. He had switched off his critical faculties, to the extent that they existed.
Can he get away with this.? This ‘state of mind’ excuse for poor behaviour, blamed on some or other subordinate and/or the ‘culture’ of regular drinking at No 10, which we hear today was for security reasons so people could talk about work and get gently or otherwise pissed without talking to anyone risky outside work.
I think that he should not. The general workplace culture in the UK has, in my experience, reduced in the amount of booze imbibed in the context of work. But maybe not in Downing Street. Don’t drink and work, please, and certainly don’t make nation-changing decisions whilst under the influence.
Yes he means “assumed”, as in he can’t back it up with any evidence, so don’t ask for any. That’s what it sounded like to me, that he didn’t want anyone to ask “why did you believe it?”
“I believed implicitly…” translates as “I no longer remember what I believed, but the fact that I was there surely implies that I believed at the time that it was a work event”.
I think most of us would say that the fact that he was there merely implies that he was oblivious of the potential repercussions.
I wonder whether the following might have motivated the qualification of the “belief”. A contextual meaning for “implicit” includes “the implicit belief in God” which means “a complete belief, without doubt, in the God of the declarer’s faith” ergo Johnson’s formulation can mean that he claims to have had a complete and unshakeable belief that that the events he visited were work events and thus by ennobling this contention from ‘a belief’ into ‘an implicit belief’ he has constructed a pillar of faith that he and his followers can adhere to like trumpers and their implicit belief that the 2020 US presidential election was stolen.
I believed implicitly that the Northern Ireland Protocol did not imply a border in the Irish Sea.
You can justify anything (first lockdown delay, etc.) this way.
I’m rather interested in the following phrase:
“…..but with hindsight, I should have sent everyone back inside.”
So “hindsight” is doing a lot of lifting. It could mean:
[1] After a night’s tossing and turning in bed I worked out that the “work event” was actually a “party”
or
[2] Now that I know what the regulations actually meant at the time, I can see that the gathering broke the rules
or
[3] Now that the story has made embarrassing headlines, I wish I hadn’t attended.
Great post as ever. Others above have picked up on the reasonably common phrase “trust implicitly” and I was also put in mind of it.
If I say “I trust you implicitly” I’m saying I believe you to be an honest person and therefore I’m going to take your word for what you say and relieve you of the responsibility for proving something to me.
For example, if I want to put in a fence between my garden and the freeholder (who I’ve never met) says “I trust you implicitly” to my offer to show him photos of the positioning, he is relieving *me* of the responsibility and effort of providing evidence that I am being honest and fair about our boundary. He’s saying he’s happy to take it on trust and that’s a good thing for him to do. In any case I would have to bear the consequences if I tried to sneak a few extra centimetres of garden, so he can afford to take it on trust.
Johnson, by contrast, in saying he “believed implicitly” that a gathering with drinks was a work event, was only relieving *himself* of the responsibility for checking the reality of the situation and whether it complied with his own COVID-19 regulations at the time.
Relieving oneself of responsibility in this situation doesn’t seem a good thing to do, but does seem typically careless and dishonest of this PM. He also seems to “believe implicitly” that he doesn’t have to face the consequences of his own actions.
I think the phrase has the effect of conjuring up the idea “please just trust me implicitly”, by association with the more common phrase. Or in other words “stop asking me awkward questions you plebs”.
However deft legal minds helping PM with wordsmithing the statement and including word ‘implicitly’ fails to get him out of the fix once two witnesses to the contrary speak up. Even more damaging will be if the alleged email querying legality of the party addressed to Mr Johnson’s PS is produced!
“Implicitly” goes glove in hand with the shenanigans refusing to deny he was “told” of the party but instead asserting he was not “warned” of it. Someone is toying with the idea of deploying/retrofitting the “Rhodesia Solution” (from Yes Minister!) given the facts.
Johnson may have been told about the party (as Cummings states) but not officially, not in the form of legal advice and not in a way he understood the relevance of what he was being told. He did not take further and seek formal or legal advice as he “implicitly” believed it to be a work event and therefore within rules; indeed (he might argue) given the team at 10DS he is entitled to rely on the fact of a lack of formal legal / civil service warning as good evidence that it must have been legal.
So he was “told” of the party in advance but not in such a way he could reasonably understand its significance but (goes the putative defence) he was let down by civil service who failed to provide the formal advice warning of a prospective breach in the rules on which he would of course immediately acted.
Johnson loves his classical references.
Implicatus -a -um
Entangled, entwined, enfolded, enveloped, embraced…. implicated, involved.
Plenty of opportunity to distance the event from popular perception of what a party looks like.
Thank you DAG and wikipedia
In the light of Cummings claims it becomes clear why Johnson used the phrase as it enables him to slide away from the accusation of lying to the HoC.
He will now argue that despite being advised that the party broke the regulations, he “implicitly believed” that it was a work event. It does not deny the advice was offered, simply that he did not believe it. That means he did not lie – he simply explained what he believed at the time. The “in hindsight” comment is all about preparing the ground in case the advice he had received became known.
Maybe this is simply part of the ongoing narrative that is part of “Operation, save big dog”. We can see today how that narrative is being built on, DePfeffel will resign if he “knowingly” misled parliament, i.e. if he knew the parties were not simply work meetings but informal, and at the time illegal, social gatherings.
He will probably get away within it in this narrow context and I’m sure some minor civil servants will get thrown under the bus along the way, but if I was an opponent, I would simply point out that here is a man who wanders through his own offices and gardens without a clue what’s going on. Oh, and by the way, this guy is apparently running the country…..
The word also demonstrates Johnson’s thought processes and attitude.
• Implicitly, any meetings at No 10 are work meetings, even BYOB.
• Similarly, he seems to think it implicit that if the Prime Minister does it, it must be legal or proper.
An attitude to one’s powers and responsibilities that is reminiscent of Nixon.
No doubt he also believes implicitly that the redecorating was for the public benefit and that proroguing Parliament was for its own good.
Another classic use of “implicitly” to evade the truth comes from the Culture media and Sport Select Committee 18 March 2018.
Ian Lucas: “When the Government corresponded with Sir Brian Leveson in December of last year they indicated in a letter dated 21 December that, and I quote, “We are not convinced the second part of the Inquiry is necessary”. In response to that letter of 21 December Sir Brian Leveson wrote back and, to quote Sir Brian Leveson, he said, “I fundamentally disagree with that conclusion”. Why did you not tell the House of Commons that?
Matt Hancock: We published the letter on the same day that I announced the conclusion of the consultation.
Ian Lucas: What you did, Secretary of State, was make a statement in the House of Commons. What you said, and I quote from Hansard, is, “Sir Brian, whom I thank for his service, agrees that the inquiry should not proceed under the current terms of reference but believes that it should continue in amended form”.
Matt Hancock: That is right.
Ian Lucas: You did not say that Sir Brian Leveson disagreed with the conclusion that the Government had reached.
Matt Hancock: Implicitly I did because I said, as you read out, that he believes that it should continue in an amended form. That is his position as he sets it out in the letter.
Ian Lucas: What Sir Brian Leveson said was that he fundamentally disagreed with the Government’s conclusion and when you made the statement to the Commons on 1 March you did not tell the Commons that, did you?
Scroll down to Part Four The truth Does’nt Matter for the full exchange
https://hackinginquiry.org/the-triumph-of-cynicism-the-suppression-of-leveson-ii/?mc_cid=2931a2066d&mc_eid=b05676a1bd