Sue Gray report going through legal checks

FatCat

Well-known member
Yes, regretfully Johnson will have to redact much of the report to avoid prejudicing the police investigation. The police will review the entire report and conclude no laws broken. We will never see the full report unless a whistle-blower gets hold of it, at risk to their short term health.
You guys did call it:

 

jam69

Well-known member
Does the report show law breaking by met police officers? Is that why they are suddenly interested?
Or johnson has asked them to kick the can down the road for 12 months.
One thing we do know is there's something daming in the report .
 

Cardiffdaffs

Well-known member
Does the report show law breaking by met police officers? Is that why they are suddenly interested?
Or johnson has asked them to kick the can down the road for 12 months.
One thing we do know is there's something daming in the report .
I think we knew there was going to be damning stuff in the Report before it was written
 

Abel Tasman

Well-known member
"This entire fiasco could have been avoided had the Met, when first presented with evidence of consistent lawbreaking at the heart of government, immediately announced an investigation, rather than being dragged to that position by a combination of public pressure and an apparent fear of the leadership being even further undermined by critical findings once Sue Gray’s report was imminent."

This is the key isn't it? Why did the Met 2 days ago apparently say their involvement had nothing to do with the Report and it could be published in full to about face completely in 48 hours? Their actions have been inconsistent at best and at worse downright shady.
 

Zoophonic

Well-known member
"This entire fiasco could have been avoided had the Met, when first presented with evidence of consistent lawbreaking at the heart of government, immediately announced an investigation, rather than being dragged to that position by a combination of public pressure and an apparent fear of the leadership being even further undermined by critical findings once Sue Gray’s report was imminent."

This is the key isn't it? Why did the Met 2 days ago apparently say their involvement had nothing to do with the Report and it could be published in full to about face completely in 48 hours? Their actions have been inconsistent at best and at worse downright shady.
Baffling behaviour from D1ck and the Met I agree entirely.
 

Jonny Ingbar

Well-known member
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.
If the MPS are investigating it makes no sense for the report to be released as it is almost certainly going to put those who have broken the law at an advantage to know what evidence Gray has uncovered.

As much as I dislike and mistrust this current government, there really isn't anything to see here.
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
If the MPS are investigating it makes no sense for the report to be released as it is almost certainly going to put those who have broken the law at an advantage to know what evidence Gray has uncovered.

As much as I dislike and mistrust this current government, there really isn't anything to see here.

But the Met have stated that they are only looking to issue fines for potential breaches of coronavirus regulations. The threshold for doing so is that the police "reasonably believe that an offence has been committed".

This isn't a massive criminal conspiracy, where you have to keep suspects separate from one another and ensure that interviews under caution are conducted in a methodical manner. There isn't going to be a trial, during which every scrap of evidence will be argued over by defence counsel, including the admissibility of such evidence.

The evidence has come from the Gray report in the first place. It either contains evidence that individual(s) broke the regulations, in which case the police should issue fines, or it doesn't, in which case the police wouldn't even be investigating. There's no obvious reason why publication of the Gray report, in full, would prejudice any such investigation.
 

zzzzz

Well-known member
Baffling behaviour from D1ck and the Met I agree entirely.
Not really. They've seen the report and not only does it compromise the PM but it will also be critical of the Met who provide security for No 10 and were complicit to all of the parties.
Tbh I fully expected thus. One massive whitewash by the lot of them
We should all take to the streets.
 

Jonny Ingbar

Well-known member
But the Met have stated that they are only looking to issue fines for potential breaches of coronavirus regulations. The threshold for doing so is that the police "reasonably believe that an offence has been committed".

This isn't a massive criminal conspiracy, where you have to keep suspects separate from one another and ensure that interviews under caution are conducted in a methodical manner. There isn't going to be a trial, during which every scrap of evidence will be argued over by defence counsel, including the admissibility of such evidence.

The evidence has come from the Gray report in the first place. It either contains evidence that individual(s) broke the regulations, in which case the police should issue fines, or it doesn't, in which case the police wouldn't even be investigating. There's no obvious reason why publication of the Gray report, in full, would prejudice any such investigation.
The reason not to publish is for the reasons I've already outlined, that it would be unusual to do so given the MPS investigation would take primacy.

I just don't buy the conspiracy theory at all, if the MPS are carrying out a proportionate investigation and certain people are likely to be found culpable, whether the punishment is fines or not, there's a right way and a wrong way to do that.

I'm merely pointing out that the MPS are right to what they have done, it's perfectly normal and I would expect it under such circumstances. The aim is to find the truth, there is a huge public interest in this matter, not to mention the reputational risk for the MPS and equally those suspected of wrongdoing are right to expect a fair and proper approach to establishing what happened.

I get that everyone wants to see a swift conclusion and those punished who have acted wrongly, but the integrity of that process is very important, otherwise the end result is compromised and undermined, which is self-defeating.
 

Zoophonic

Well-known member
The reason not to publish is for the reasons I've already outlined, that it would be unusual to do so given the MPS investigation would take primacy.

I just don't buy the conspiracy theory at all, if the MPS are carrying out a proportionate investigation and certain people are likely to be found culpable, whether the punishment is fines or not, there's a right way and a wrong way to do that.

I'm merely pointing out that the MPS are right to what they have done, it's perfectly normal and I would expect it under such circumstances. The aim is to find the truth, there is a huge public interest in this matter, not to mention the reputational risk for the MPS and equally those suspected of wrongdoing are right to expect a fair and proper approach to establishing what happened.

I get that everyone wants to see a swift conclusion and those punished who have acted wrongly, but the integrity of that process is very important, otherwise the end result is compromised and undermined, which is self-defeating.
You do understand the suspicion though don't you? I don't think anybody is unclear as to the reason why the Report is now to be delayed - I think the question is the timing and why all of a sudden it seems the Met have acted today after having said just two days ago "go ahead and publish".

If a lawyer has suddenly put pressure on the police to change their view then I agree we have to let them get on with it. I think the timing though is why there is building anger, suspicion and frustration. I think the police need to make it clear why they have changed that position. I don't think they have to compromise and individual by doing so.
 

Jonny Ingbar

Well-known member
You do understand the suspicion though don't you? I don't think anybody is unclear as to the reason why the Report is now to be delayed - I think the question is the timing and why all of a sudden it seems the Met have acted today after having said just two days ago "go ahead and publish".

If a lawyer has suddenly put pressure on the police to change their view then I agree we have to let them get on with it. I think the timing though is why there is building anger, suspicion and frustration. I think the police need to make it clear why they have changed that position. I don't think they have to compromise and individual by doing so.
Yes I agree with that, I think the MPS's obvious reluctance to become involved earlier has created unnecessary suspicion and it isn't a good look for them, but it seems they have been forced into a corner by the Gray reports identification of evidence that tends to show individual(s) have broken the lock-down laws.

I get that they didn't want to become embroiled in what is a political shitstorm, because it's a lose/lose for them, but then politics has slowly crept into policing for a number of years now and it is much the worse for it, so I also understand why they would take that position.

Ultimately though, this whole farce has been created by a prime minister who hasn't had the decency or moral compulsion to accept the consequences of his own actions and be accountable to the British people.

Had he done so and done the right and proper thing this whole debate, and the suspicion it creates, would be moot.
 
Top
X