Surprise surprise

I was really hoping this was going to be about the loveable 80s programme. Yet I knew deep down what it would be in reference too.

The blonde bomber has actually had his cake and eaten it.

This country is so corrupt it is now laughable, even satire programmes like HIGNFY must think we're out!!!
 
They now do of all of this right in the open. They dont even try to hide because they know people will believe their denials anyway.
 
and the can gets kicked down the road for another few months and then quelle surprise the police or CPS find there isn’t enough evidence to support a prosecution.

And that’s not even what boils my pïss, it’s that no one really cares anymore, so they can do what the hell they please And the GBP go 🙄 tut!
 
I think this whole issue mirrors what we sawin the US with Trump, that the elected leaders can act pretty much however they want and the system is pretty much impotent in dealing with them.

It's frightening how powerless the state actually is when that particular elected leader acts with impunity and no moral or ethical conscience.
 
I think this whole issue mirrors what we sawin the US with Trump, that the elected leaders can act pretty much however they want and the system is pretty much impotent in dealing with them.

It's frightening how powerless the state actually is when that particular elected leader acts with impunity and no moral or ethical conscience.
But this is the state conspiring with the politician.

Why did the Met choose this moment, when the report was finished and set to be published, rather than when they first saw it - to announce they wanted changes?
 
We're in a completely incredible position that the fact that the Prime Minister and Downing Street is under active police investigation is the major reason they'll be able to remain in position.
 
This could have something to do with the investigations that the police are carrying out and do not want their investigations interfered with until they are completed.
 
But this is the state conspiring with the politician.

Why did the Met choose this moment, when the report was finished and set to be published, rather than when they first saw it - to announce they wanted changes?
My educated guess would be because they've seen it and feel it may compromise their investigation.

Which, if true, is bad news for BJ because it suggests Gray has reported on instances of law breaking, which I also suspect is why the MPS became involved at the eleventh hour ie at the point they became aware that Gray had evidence of occasions where laws were broken.

Is a very unusual situation where a criminal investigation doesn't have primacy over what is, for all intent and purposes, an internal report.

What should have happened is that Grays work was paused the moment she found evidence of the law being broken, allowing the MPS to them investigate.

Because this didn't happened we have a very messy situation, but corruption?

I don't think so.
 
The bit that concerns me the most is this:

"The Metropolitan Police has asked senior civil servant Sue Gray to make "minimal reference" to events they are investigating in her report.

But the Met has asked her to leave out details of parties they are investigating for Covid rule-breaking."

They've not asked her to delay the report. They've not asked her to redact parts until their investigation is complete. They've asked her to completely leave out details full stop. I'm not sure that should be up to them should it?

So her "full" report will be published, which probably won't make any mention of Johnson. We then wait for the police investigation. The parameters of a police investigation are going to be very different from an internal inquiry. It's only going to be concerned with anything that broke the law.

Anything about misconduct, culture etc isn't going to be covered. I suspect it will be very matter of fact. A party was held on this date, it broke the rules, those in attendance have been fined. Even if Johnson gets fined (as seems likely) it's not going to embarrass him half as much as a full inquiry into working practices in number 10. He'll bluster through it, make a hollow apology and carry on.
 
How can a report about events in breach of lockdown laws be published if it's not allowed to mention breaches of lockdown laws?

It'll be a very short report, if it comes out at all. Imagine Tale Of Two Cities not being allowed to mention said two cities? 'It was times. The end.'
 
Absolute corrupt stitch-up, but I don't for a second expect Dominic Cummings to take this on the chin.....expect incoming.
 
Back
Top