Covid inquiry evidence

I reckon Johnson will have self-defined the scope of relevant dates and will have held back any documented communications that did not take place on specific dates.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
It's an interesting point, because in law there is a basic right that you cannot be forced to self-incriminate, hence the right to silence etc.

But in this case and these circumstances I think this position is the correct one; these are public servants in the highest office and the public interest outweighs the first point.

If the enquiry do see the material in an unredacted form it will be ingesting to see how they treat other issues uncovered by it, which I'm certain there will be.

Are they duty bound to highlight breaches of the ministerial code, legislative breaches or poor conduct?

And is so will this be included in the report?

Altogether I think the whole issue further exposes the absolute disregard and arrogant contempt of the standards that the government should be adhering to.
Click to expand...
Its an inquiry not a criminal case, the same protections don't apply. A defendants right to remain silent assumes a defendant. The closest this gets is that we all have the right to not answer questions. In an inquiry the documentation is evidence. It is against the law to withold material evidence.
 
Laughing said:
Its an inquiry not a criminal case, the same protections don't apply. A defendants right to remain silent assumes a defendant. The closest this gets is that we all have the right to not answer questions. In an inquiry the documentation is evidence. It is against the law to withold material evidence.
Click to expand...

I think the principal for an enquiry is -
It is for the enquiry team to determine what is relevant.
It is a damaging precedent if the government determines. what is/isn’t relevant for a public inquiry.

We rightly condemn governments lack of transparency in Russia, China et al.
 
Laughing said:
Its an inquiry not a criminal case, the same protections don't apply. A defendants right to remain silent assumes a defendant. The closest this gets is that we all have the right to not answer questions. In an inquiry the documentation is evidence. It is against the law to withold material evidence.
Click to expand...
I get that, but what if there is evidence that incriminates lockdown breaches for example?

That's the point I think the government will possibly argue at Judicial review, albeit I think they would lose.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
I get that, but what if there is evidence that incriminates lockdown breaches for example?

That's the point I think the government will possibly argue at Judicial review, albeit I think they would lose.
Click to expand...
I don't know Jonny but I would think its the same as, for example you kill your wife and bury her under the patio. The police get a warrant and dig your patio up. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy if you are under investigation, assuming a judge agrees, of course.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
I get that, but what if there is evidence that incriminates lockdown breaches for example?

That's the point I think the government will possibly argue at Judicial review, albeit I think they would lose.
Click to expand...

It’s a possibility isn’t it?
Just begs a question.
Is it ‘just’ that they are withholding the documentation because there is ‘evidence of criminal acts by those concerned?

Suppose it doesn’t matter with this lot - right and wrong has merged in their favour
 
newusername said:
Must admit I didn't follow it closely (or know how many trials he's faced) but didn't he lose the case because his defence team when making disclosure to the other side failed to redact his messages & so they could see that he knew he was lying, didn't believe his sources that it was a false flag operation but proceeded to broadcast that anyway?
Click to expand...
That was part of the compensation hearings afterwards, the initial trial was a default judgement by the judge in the case as he didn't take part in the disclosure hearings, they sent random people as the corporate representative and didn't give the full disclosure that was requested.

But yeah, his own legal team accidentally sent all of the contents of his phone to the attorneys prosecuting the case in Texas.

(all that is from memory)

If you have a strong dislike for Alex Jones, and have a lot of time to fill with Podcasts! I can't recommend 'Knowledge Fight' (a play on Info Wars) highly enough. Two guys from Chicago who fact check his shows (weekly new ones and from the historic archives) and offer a comedic slant. They're over 700 episodes now. One of the guys is deemed to be such an expert on Alex he was actually used by the prosecution team as some sort of special counsel.
 
Chris_Boro said:
Government taking the inquiry to court...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1664304546846322691
Click to expand...
The optics are absolutely terrible here - Sunak making the Govt look very, very guilty indeed. I'd guess the documents and messages etc will open up a huge can of worms around bad advice, avoidable deaths and dodgy contracts in black and white for friends of Ministers.

Corruption reigns in the Tory party.
 
WeeGord said:
The optics are absolutely terrible here - Sunak making the Govt look very, very guilty indeed. I'd guess the documents and messages etc will open up a huge can of worms around bad advice, avoidable deaths and dodgy contracts in black and white for friends of Ministers.

Corruption reigns in the Tory party.
Click to expand...
Already another shambles for Sunak and the Tories.
 
Holy fcuk. Times reporter says he has a list of some of the questions that Hallet sent to Johnson earlier this year.

The fat lying fcuk has destroyed the entire country hasn't he?

"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1664326988604030976
 
ThePrisoner said:
Holy fcuk. Times reporter says he has a list of some of the questions that Hallet sent to Johnson earlier this year.

The fat lying fcuk has destroyed the entire country hasn't he?

"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1664326988604030976
Click to expand...
WOW!!!!!!!
 
Laughing said:
I don't know Jonny but I would think its the same as, for example you kill your wife and bury her under the patio. The police get a warrant and dig your patio up. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy if you are under investigation, assuming a judge agrees, of course.
Click to expand...
And the police would need a warrant to do so and the suspect would still have a right to silence, in any circumstances.

It's a technical point around legality and jurisdiction and one that only a court could rule on to define the correct legal path, but all that aside what a sad indictment the situation is of the current government.
 
1finny said:
It’s a possibility isn’t it?
Just begs a question.
Is it ‘just’ that they are withholding the documentation because there is ‘evidence of criminal acts by those concerned?

Suppose it doesn’t matter with this lot - right and wrong has merged in their favour
Click to expand...
Given their track record the mind boggles at what could be within the material.

Labour are all over this and rightly so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top