Sue Gray report going through legal checks

Uwefuchs

Well-known member
Its a cover up, the bloke has got the police wrapped around his little finger.

How can anyone have any trust in the place and politicians again, he'll be rigging elections next.
 

The Card Cheat

Well-known member
Its political skullduggerry of the most devious kind. The Met stubbornly refused to get involved until it starts to become clear to Buffoon Johnson that Greys report is going to completely expose him, then suddenly they need to investigate and conveniently skupper the civil servants damning report. Also making it virtually impossible for anyone in opposition to complain, as they'd have to directly criticise the metropolitan police.
 

festa5

Well-known member
Its political skullduggerry of the most devious kind. The Met stubbornly refused to get involved until it starts to become clear to Buffoon Johnson that Greys report is going to completely expose him, then suddenly they need to investigate and conveniently skupper the civil servants damning report. Also making it virtually impossible for anyone in opposition to complain, as they'd have to directly criticise the metropolitan police.
Plus they've already welcomed the police investigation.

It'll be a fine and a slap on the wrist from them. Any other politician would have to resign on principle. But as Johnson doesn't have any he'll laugh it off no problem.
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
Looks like now Gray won't publish the report at all.
If Sue Gray is to retain an ounce of her professional credibility, then she needs to refuse to publish the report until she is allowed to do so in full. If that means waiting until the conclusion of the police investigation, then so be it.

Otherwise, she will be seen as being part of this outrageous cover up. As things stand, she would be publishing a factual report referencing only the more minor transgressions of lockdown rules. It would probably justify the disciplining of a few junior civil servants, but nothing more.

The Met would then, at a later date, simply issue a statement outlining that they had (or hadn’t) issued a few fines to unnamed individuals.

Time would have marched on. There would be no report covering the most serious breaches of the rules, no further investigations (Downing Street considers the matter closed) and no consequences for those involved.
 

Boro in Devon

Well-known member
I think that they have appointed the Beastie Boys as special advisors

Their first job was "You have to fight, for your right to .........."
 

Chris_Boro

Well-known member
If Sue Gray is to retain an ounce of her professional credibility, then she needs to refuse to publish the report until she is allowed to do so in full. If that means waiting until the conclusion of the police investigation, then so be it.

Otherwise, she will be seen as being part of this outrageous cover up. As things stand, she would be publishing a factual report referencing only the more minor transgressions of lockdown rules. It would probably justify the disciplining of a few junior civil servants, but nothing more.

The Met would then, at a later date, simply issue a statement outlining that they had (or hadn’t) issued a few fines to unnamed individuals.

Time would have marched on. There would be no report covering the most serious breaches of the rules, no further investigations (Downing Street considers the matter closed) and no consequences for those involved.

What I don't get is yesterday the MET were happy for the report to be released in full, then suddenly they insist on it's most important parts be blocked.

What's changed in a few hours? Either the report was way more damaging than the MET realised and a possibility of a misconduct in a public office offence has been committed (hiding/deleting evidence, blackmail etc) or the MET are activity or incompetently, whitewashing the report.

None of this looks good for any of the parties involved, but it could also be about to explode.
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
What I don't get is yesterday the MET were happy for the report to be released in full, then suddenly they insist on it's most important parts be blocked.

What's changed in a few hours? Either the report was way more damaging than the MET realised and a possibility of a misconduct in a public office offence has been committed (hiding/deleting evidence, blackmail etc) or the MET are activity or incompetently, whitewashing the report.

None of this looks good for any of the parties involved, but it could also be about to explode.

I tend not to subscribe to conspiracy theories. However, given the Met commissioner’s general toadyness towards this government, I see this as part of a cover up. Pure and simple.

The change in approach from the Met will be due to the fact that the original statement will have come from an officer, looking at it dispassionately, who saw no good reason to suppress the report. Obviously, that was unhelpful to the PM hence the revised stance, which will have come from the top.
 

Muttley

Well-known member
D!ck to the rescue, prefect co-ordination, nothing to see here...

They must take us for fools with the attention spam of an ageing goldfish in that last throws of dementia.
 

Jonny Ingbar

Well-known member
Academic now anyway. Gray has been told to remove almost all of it
I dont think its academic, without trying to be pedantic, its right that any parts of the report that could be prejudicial to the criminal report are removed and I don't think those that have broken the law will escape.

I don't see this latest issue as being anything other that what you would expect is such circumstances.

What I do believe is that this prime minister, and by their association and willingness to condone his behavior and lies, the government.

But the fact the MPS are wanting to protect their criminal investigation from prejudice is absolutely right and proper in the circumstances, so I can't see anything that is unusual here, other than the fact that they have agreed to the release of the Gray report.
 

Chris_Boro

Well-known member
I dont think its academic, without trying to be pedantic, its right that any parts of the report that could be prejudicial to the criminal report are removed and I don't think those that have broken the law will escape.

I don't see this latest issue as being anything other that what you would expect is such circumstances.

What I do believe is that this prime minister, and by their association and willingness to condone his behavior and lies, the government.

But the fact the MPS are wanting to protect their criminal investigation from prejudice is absolutely right and proper in the circumstances, so I can't see anything that is unusual here, other than the fact that they have agreed to the release of the Gray report.

But none if this is likely to go to a Jury for prejudice to be a factor and why only yesterday was it ok for the report to be released in full?

If more serious law breaking has occurred then the police should block the whole thing and take Sue Gray out of the equation.

Right now it all stinks of a orchestrated cover up.
 

Cardiffdaffs

Well-known member
I dont think its academic, without trying to be pedantic, its right that any parts of the report that could be prejudicial to the criminal report are removed and I don't think those that have broken the law will escape.

I don't see this latest issue as being anything other that what you would expect is such circumstances.

What I do believe is that this prime minister, and by their association and willingness to condone his behavior and lies, the government.

But the fact the MPS are wanting to protect their criminal investigation from prejudice is absolutely right and proper in the circumstances, so I can't see anything that is unusual here, other than the fact that they have agreed to the release of the Gray report.
Youll have to take my cynicism and facetiousness with a pinch of salt in this instance. The argument at this stage is academic because the names are being removed. In fact as said above pointless it being commissioned in the first place as it is being usurped by the police investigation. The Gray Report may not see the light of day. It should because it is reporting on a cultural issue at the heart of government presided over by a liar and a cheat as supposed leader and a bunch of charlatan yes men and women.

Hope Im wrong.
 

zzzzz

Well-known member
It's every time they're in govt though.... that what infuriates me more than anything.
It's normally massive sleaze with backhander after backhander and gongs and lies and a foot on the throat of the poor.
Yet STILL people vote for them. WHY?!!!
 

Muttley

Well-known member
Yet STILL people vote for them. WHY?!!!
cookies.jpg
They use the press to get people who have done "quite well" to vote in the interests of the mega rich rather than the ordinary working class people from whom they sprung. So it is foreigners in rafts, chavs on benefits, or anyone to make them think that a vote to oppress is a vote in their interests when nothing could be further from the truth. It's worked ever since universal suffrage and shows no signs of running out of steam yet.
 
Top
X