T.R.O.Y. wrote:If you’re so bothered about ‘due process’ you should be pushing for an independent inquiry or a police investigation - Maugham’s running a campaign for this do maybe you could join forces?
The government (or you) couldn’t care less about actually getting to the facts though, we see that with the consistent truth twisting you resort to, clutching at straws to find a way to escape blame.
See Lord Kerslakes comments reported today - this isn’t difficult to understand:
“When the inquiry started, it was about one event and we didn’t know that the prime minister was involved. Now we find that there were over a dozen events and not only is the prime minister implicated but he is front, back and centre of what happened.
“You cannot have a situation where a civil servant will make a pronouncement that could end the office of a prime minister. The consequence is that Sue Gray will inevitably have to stop short of that.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/16/concerns-grow-that-scale-of-partygate-is-now-too-great-for-sue-grays-inquiry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Ah at last a link to your source to as there was a party in May on which you've used to be judge and jury about all this BEFORE the investigation has taken place....
Oh wait, no it's not...!
Let's nail a few myths shall we.
Sue Gray is 65 years old, she'll be retiring on full civil servants pension soon, so she's not bothered about her future career advancement.
She's also previous to her current job been passed over for the top civil service job in Northern Ireland, so she probably knew she was at the top of her career progression anyway.
She also was formerly the director-general of the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office.
There's absolutely no reason for her not to report her findings honestly and truthfully - and stand by them.
Her task is -
to carry out investigations into:
● allegations made of a gathering in No10 Downing Street on 27 November
2020;
● a gathering at the Department for Education on 10 December 2020; and
● allegations made of a gathering in No10 Downing Street on 18 December
2020.
Where there are credible allegations relating to other gatherings, these may be
investigated.
The primary purpose will be to establish swiftly a general understanding of the nature
of the gatherings, including attendance, the setting and the purpose, with reference
to adherence to the guidance in place at the time.
If required, the investigations will establish whether individual disciplinary action is
warranted.
The work will be undertaken by officials in the Cabinet Office at the direction of the
Cabinet Secretary, with support from the Government Legal Department.
The team will have access to all relevant records, and be able to speak to members
of staff.
As with all internal investigations, if during the course of the work any evidence
emerges of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence, the matter will be referred
to the police and the Cabinet Office’s work may be paused. Matters relating to
adherence to the law are properly for the police to investigate and the Cabinet Office
will liaise with them as appropriate.
Any matters relating to the conduct of Ministers should follow the process set out in
the Ministerial Code in the normal way.
All Ministers, Special Advisers, and civil servants will be expected to co-operate with
the investigations.
http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2021-0936/Terms_of_Reference_Cabinet_Secretary_Investigations_December2021.pdf"Her report, which ministers say will be published shortly, is likely to be a largely factual account of any gatherings, and she cannot rule on whether lockdown laws were broken.
The findings will be made public, but not necessarily the full report.
Gray’s report is set to be a largely factual account about parties that were held in Downing Street. It may not assign individual blame but might refer disciplinary action to others. It may touch on the role of the prime minister, but it isn’t Gray's place to judge his behaviour.
The bare facts alone could prove deeply damaging, and how she sets them out, and the language used, may indicate her view on the seriousness of what has happened and the wider culture that allowed it to happen.At the heart of the problem with Gray’s inquiry is the prime minister. It is not Sue Gray’s place to judge whether Boris Johnson misled the House of Commons. His ministerial code rightly says that it "is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity". Determining whether the facts in Gray’s report mean that the prime minister has breached the code should be the remit of Lord Geidt, the adviser on ministerial interests.
Ultimately, Johnson will be judged by his peers, his party and the voting public – where polls and by-elections suggest it is already having an effect. They will not be assessing him on whether his defence is watertight, but on his leadership during a national crisis in the face of massive public anger and accusations of hypocrisy.
But whether led by Gray or by Geidt, no investigation can decide what the consequences should be for ministers – up to and including the prime minister, these are always politically determined.
It is the prime minister who is accountable for No.10’s code of conduct, whatever part individual officials or advisers took in organising parties. Whatever Sue Gray finds about what parties were held, it is Boris Johnson who must deal with the hangover".
Let's pause for a second and deal with Maugham.
I'm surprised you've not worked him out yet, I can only imagine he's got you under his spell, like he has with many thousands of other social media addicted Tory haters.
He, in my opinion (I say that because I don't want to be sued) is that he is little better than a conman playing on the weaknesses of those who believe anything bad against the Tory Party. His game is to whip up mutual anger over something, file for a JR and seek crowd funding - which let me point out is never returned even if the court case never ends up happening, or if it is won and the government pays GLP legal costs in full.
Ask yourself how much has he raised by doing this over the last year (GLP's account for the year previous showed something like £2m received in this way), how much court action has cost - he claims four cases, four wins - in which case that would be nothing and probably more importantly what it has all achieved.
Has he really held government to account? What has the three verdict's achieved in the cases I'm aware of - publish contract awards within 30 days, the government looked dodgy on awarding a contract and in last case they didn't even achieve a verdict because although the civil service got it technically wrong in what they did, it did not effect the outcome.
Is that £2m worth of value for crowdfunders money?
Has anything changed significantly from his three 'wins'?
Anyway he's making a fuss about the Met Police - and started a JR and ka-ching. ka-ching, the money has come flooded in for him again!
Money for old rope really isn't it?
All this will be long over by the time it ever comes to court, Johnson almost certainly will no longer be PM, probably left politics completely by then - yet Maugham will have another hefty wodge of cash in the GLP bank account that he doesn't need to give back.
He plays this trick every time and mugs like you fall for it every time too and give him your cash again!!!
Anyway back to the point, should Gray be heading this investigation or the police?
Well the correct answer really is neither!
" Impartial civil servants that serve the government of the day cannot be the right people to investigate allegations of prime ministerial wrongdoing. However, the one person who does have licence to judge the most senior ministers in the government, Lord Geidt, does not have the power to launch his own inquiry. An independent adviser with statutory backing could have jumped into the issue, ensuring the civil service could stay focused on its own actions".
Let me repeat this sentence again...
"But whether led by Gray or by Geidt, no investigation can decide what the consequences should be for ministers – up to and including the prime minister, these are always politically determined".
"Whether it is through another urgent question, PMQs or the prime minister coming to the House, it is likely MPs will find an opportunity to debate Gray’s report – though there is no fixed mechanism for a vote. Conservative MPs will be looking at both Gray’s report, but also how the prime minister responds himself".
So in conclusion it is what it is, Gray is impartial and will report honestly, she has nothing to lose by doing so and nothing to gain by hiding stuff.
Her job is to report the facts and it is the facts and how Johnson reacts to them, that will determine his future - politically he's already a dead man walking even if he isn't immediately brought down by all this.
They say a week in politics is a long time but the damage has been done for Boris and he will continue to be toxic for the Tory brand from now on - and rule Two in politics remember, is to do what is necessary to stay in power - and the Conservative Party will!
The extract's I've posted above come from here -
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/downing-street-party-gray-reportCan't wait for Gray's findings to be published!!!
I look forward to you sending me that link before then though...
Home
