How is the Tory government doing?

Whitesince63 wrote:Does it really matter when it comes out? It isn’t going to hang Boris and even if it does confirm he broke the rules, which I think we already know he has anyway, it still isn’t going to bring him down, only his MP’s can do that and I don’t think for one minute that the required majority will be there. Sadly for you and his other critics Lusty, you’ve at least until May 24 and probably another 5 years after that!! Boris is going nowhere unless he refuses to soften some of his more excessive green and tax policies and sorts immigration. My hope is that he will be forced back into conventional Conservatism, get rid of the EU red tape holding us back, resolve Ireland and bring it back into the U.K. fully and start to sow the seeds needed to take advantage of being out of Europe. So far he’s done none of that and sadly until he does you will quite rightly be able to ask “what the hell was the point of Brexit?”

Totally understand that you, as a traditional Tory, would like a return to "conventional Conservatism". However, Brexit didn't promise it's supporters a return to "conventional Conservatism" did it? It promised a broad church of voters a disparate range of vague things, some of which were incompatible with each other so some factions were never going to be happy.
And anyway "conventional Conservatism" itself has been one-nation, pro-Europe in the post war period until Thatcher branded it's supporters as "wets".
Now Brexit is threatening to break up the very Union that is central to "conventional Conservatism" - and we're out of Europe to boot.

There’s been significant backlash after Scotland Yard revealed that the Sue Gray inquiry has been asked to make ‘minimal reference’ to events being investigated by the police.

Better crack on with redacting that report eh Sue?

US fears dirty Russian money in "Londongrad" will slow Russian sanctions re Ukraine.

Fair point. And with the Russians stashing an estimated £100 billion a year in Belgravia etc it does reduce the chances of them nuking us.

It’s the Russian money in London that should make it easy for us to come down heavily on the Oligarchs responsible Lusty, if anything does happen. Putin would be the one at most risk and I can’t see him wanting his billions stranded can you? That’s why I don’t believe for one minute that Russia will attack Ukraine.

wanderlust wrote:There’s been significant backlash after Scotland Yard revealed that the Sue Gray inquiry has been asked to make ‘minimal reference’ to events being investigated by the police.

Better crack on with redacting that report eh Sue?

You don't half talk prejudicial bollocks.

Quoting political activists in the Manchester Evening News now ffs!

This is the real story -



We had expected the Sue Gray report to be published earlier this week.

The Met announcing its own investigation threw a spanner in the works, which is still being dealt with.

For the past few days, we've known Ms Gray was talking to the Met and government lawyers about what could and couldn't be published.

Ms Gray wanted to send a copy of the report to No 10 which could be published in full. That was the intention this morning.

But the police statement appears to have thrown the process into chaos. Many in the cabinet office did not know it was coming - and are working out the implications.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60166997

Stinks of Cressida Dick doing Boris a favour to me, why was this not announced with the Met's initial statement on Wednesday?

She shouldn't be anywhere near such a senior role in public office.

14:31
Police intervention 'surprising and quite unhelpful'

The former director of public prosecutions Lord Ken Macdonald has said today's police statement about what should be included in Sue Gray’s report is "surprising and quite unhelpful".

Lord Macdonald tells BBC Radio 4's World at One it's a "bit of a stretch" to suggest that publishing the Gray report might tip off people in advance before the police have questioned them.

"These people all know what they have done or haven't done, and I very much doubt that anything Sue Gray says is going to come as any great surprise to any of the protagonists," he says.

Macdonald says it seems like a "very cautious" - perhaps overly cautious - move by the Met Police in the face of "powerful" public interest in the publication of the report.

He adds that it's "highly undesirable" that this situation is left hanging in the air "a moment longer than necessary".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-60162758

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Stinks of Cressida Dick doing Boris a favour to me

I couldn't possibly comment TROY - I only posted what other have said

Mind you, it seems to have moved from "published in full" to "the bits that aren't subject to criminal investigation (for that is the Mets remit) will be published in full" i.e. anything but the important bits.

And as the Met are likely to only reveal their findings and not the actual evidence it seems that the evidence may actually be withheld from public scrutiny.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Stinks of Cressida Dick doing Boris a favour to me, why was this not announced with the Met's initial statement on Wednesday?

She shouldn't be anywhere near such a senior role in public office.

This woman is still in office because Johnson and Patel extended her contract.

Totally obscene and nauseating following the horrific death of Sarah Everard.

If Couzens had been kicked out of the police for his past repellant behaviour , 

 Sarah Everard would still be enjoying her life.

The sight of Dame Dick makes my blood boil!!

More "prejudicial bollocks" from senior Tory MP Sir Roger Gale

...and this obviously prejudiced civil servant type:

Ken Macdonald, Baron Macdonald of River Glaven QC a former head of Britain's prosecution service (DPP) said the police statement appeared "disproportionate" if detectives were investigating the kind of minor offences that would usually be punished with a fine.


"The risk of the police intervention this morning is that this leaves things hanging in the air for weeks and months, and that seems obviously not to be in the public interest," he told the BBC.


Macdonald said the delay could only be justified if Gray had found evidence of "the coordinated deletion of emails or text messages" that had "raised the stakes and brought forward the consideration of more serious offending into play."

wanderlust wrote:More "prejudicial bollocks" from senior Tory MP Sir Roger Gale

...and this obviously prejudiced civil servant type:

Ken Macdonald, Baron Macdonald of River Glaven QC a former head of Britain's prosecution service (DPP) said the police statement appeared "disproportionate" if detectives were investigating the kind of minor offences that would usually be punished with a fine.


"The risk of the police intervention this morning is that this leaves things hanging in the air for weeks and months, and that seems obviously not to be in the public interest," he told the BBC.


Macdonald said the delay could only be justified if Gray had found evidence of "the coordinated deletion of emails or text messages" that had "raised the stakes and brought forward the consideration of more serious offending into play."

Try reading post 527 you utter, utter muppet!!!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Stinks of Cressida Dick doing Boris a favour to me, why was this not announced with the Met's initial statement on Wednesday?

She shouldn't be anywhere near such a senior role in public office.

Fwiw, she would have been advised by the Met's legal experts and would have had to act in accordance with that.

Sounds to me that this was always the understanding?

Post 484 above - Johnson obviously thought it was -

The PM's official spokesman says anyone required to would be expected to cooperate fully with the investigation.

The spokesman also confirms that parts of the inquiry led by senior civil servant Sue Gray will not be published until after the police investigation is completed.

But the spokesman says the parts of the probe which are not being investigated by police can still be published.

The spokesman insists: "We want what is able to be concluded to be made public as soon as possible."

I assume Gray must have known that too?

My guess is when Gray's report was seen by the Met's law experts they wanted the 'named' senior officials names to be redacted and that Gray wanted the names to be shown in full to avoid claims of potential cover ups - hence a sort of stalemate?

Her terms of reference for the investigation clearly stated it would stop if it became a police matter.

Perhaps everyone really wants the report to be published but in law the people named shouldn't be known until the police have done their investigation and issued VPN's first?

I really don't think it is Dick, dicking around over this as some sort of political favour or something.

I suspect the true reason for the Mets request might be something to do as per my post 489 above, where I suggest a more serious event such as a cover up - which could lead to custodial sentence would be a cause for police involvement halting those parts of the investigation/publication.

Sluffy wrote:





Try reading post 527 you utter, utter muppet!!!

I did...and there is no mention of either Sir Roger's comments or what Macdonald said about "the coordinated deletion of emails or text messages" that had "raised the stakes and brought forward the consideration of more serious offending into play."

So you try reading it yourself you (insert childish insult and multiple emojis of your choice here)

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:





Try reading post 527 you utter, utter muppet!!!

I did...and there is no mention of either Sir Roger's comments or what Macdonald said about "the coordinated deletion of emails or text messages" that had "raised the stakes and brought forward the consideration of more serious offending into play."

So you try reading it yourself you (insert childish insult and multiple emojis of your choice here)

You mean exactly the same point I posted about THREE DAYS AGO!!!

Sluffy wrote:No mate, I don't think the police involvement is to nail Boris, I reckon there is something in the allegations that there have been an attempted cover up - delete pictures and messages taken during the parties is being claimed for instance.

Organising and being at a party is one thing - it is a trivial matter in the scheme of things really if it was in respect of the person who lives next door to me or you say - but in this case we have the PM involved (directly or not) and the cover up (if there is one) is much more serious than the offence at being there in the first place*.

It's up to people to view Johnson on his judgement, honesty and integrity if he was partying or not - but covering up if there were any parties at all is deliberately perverting the course of justice and carries a higher tariff than being in a lockdown party per se.

I reckon someone will be prosecuted if this really did happen - and interesting to see on whose authority they acted upon...!!!


* Under the Coronavirus Act, Covid breaches are classified as summary offences.
This means they do not come with prison sentences, but are punishable by fines.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60124162

Whereas perverting the course of justice IS a custodial offence - see Mr and Mrs Chris Huhne (Lib Dem)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-22506878

From the BBC's website this evening:

 "The SNP's Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, claimed there had been "collusion" between the Cabinet Office and the Met police, telling BBC News: "This does look as if it's a stitch-up and the only person that benefits from that is Boris Johnson."


Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: "A stitch-up between the Met leadership and No 10 will damage our politics for generations and it looks like it is happening right in front of our eyes."

It’s the change in position from the Met that stinks, if this was their position from the start why wasn’t it announced Wednesday?

The optics are awful regardless of whether this is a stitch up or not - the public will only see it in one way it’s incredibly damaging.

Time for an apology from Dick,head of the Met.....

T.R.O.Y. wrote:It’s the change in position from the Met that stinks, if this was their position from the start why wasn’t it announced Wednesday?

The optics are awful regardless of whether this is a stitch up or not - the public will only see it in one way it’s incredibly damaging.

I might be mistaken but has the met ever issued a statement over Sue Gray's report as to what can be published and what can't?

Hasn't all that come from parliament and Whitehall?

If so then the Met hasn't changed its position it never gave one in the first place.

And the default position for any police force would be to play it by the book, which would basically means keeping everything to itself before it comes to court.


You are quite right of course but sadly most people (certainly on here!) have already made their minds up that whatever happens it will all end in a big whitewash no matter what evidence - or lack of it - Gray's and now the Met's investigations turn up.

Guilty no matter what is their views.

Christ I've even had Nut's village idiot telling me that all public servants are just that - 'servant's' - to do what our political 'masters' require, even if that means breaking the law and throwing ourselves under a bus for them!!!

No doubt that's a widespread social media view too?

It's starting to turn very bad when  the state, parliament, civil servants, the police, judiciary, etc, etc are undermined so much that there is no longer trust and belief in them and I honestly believe we've already started along this path of no return.

Let due process take place and judge on the evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around.

Downing Street parties: Sue Gray won't wait for police inquiry

Sue Gray is expected to deliver her report on No 10 parties to the PM without waiting for the police inquiry to conclude, the BBC has been told.

The senior civil servant is expected to hand her report to the prime minister shortly but no exact timescale has been given.

It comes after days of confusion over when the report would be published.

The Met Police has denied its investigation is to blame for any delay.

The police had asked for minimal references to be made to the events they are looking at, in order to "avoid any prejudice to our investigation".

This means the report Ms Gray releases before the police probe is complete may need to contain some redactions, or be changed.

Downing Street is yet to receive the document, which it has promised to publish.

Material from the Cabinet Office, which the Met requested to "support its investigation into potential breaches of Covid-19 regulations at a number of events in Downing Street and Whitehall", was received by the force on Friday.

In a statement, the Met said it expected to approach individuals "identified as having potentially breached" regulations.

Commander Catherine Roper, who leads the Met's Central Specialist Crime Command, said "the offences under investigation, where proven, would normally result in the issuing of a fixed penalty notice".

She added that the Met's actions would be "proportionate to the nature of these offences".

BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said he had been told Ms Gray was trying to redraft parts of her report to address any police concerns - but wanted to avoid blanking out whole swathes of text in case it looked like "a Whitehall whitewash".

Former director of public prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, told the BBC that asking for Ms Gray's report to make only minimal reference to the gatherings being investigated by police seemed "disproportionate" if the force was only considering fixed penalty notices.

Labour has called for the report to be published in full and the investigations to be wrapped up as soon as possible.

The SNP and Liberal Democrats are claiming the delay in publication is a "stitch-up" aimed at keeping Boris Johnson in power.

The report is seen as key to Mr Johnson's political future, with many Conservative MPs saying they will wait for its publication before deciding whether to take action against the prime minister.

Mr Johnson has been under pressure following a string of allegations about events held in Downing Street and other government premises during coronavirus restrictions.

It has already been confirmed that the events Ms Gray is looking into include a "bring-your-own-booze" drinks event in the No 10 garden in May 2020, which was attended by Mr Johnson, and a staff gathering to celebrate his birthday in June 2020.

On Tuesday, Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick announced that the force was investigating.

The SNP's Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, said: "If the UK government refuses to publish the full unredacted report it will prove, yet again, that Westminster is utterly corrupt and broken beyond repair.

"It won't save Boris Johnson's skin. It will only add to the calls for him to go."

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: "Anything short of the full report would be a Whitehall whitewash not worth the paper it is written on."

And Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said: "What I want to see is Sue Gray's report in full and the investigation finished as quickly as possible."

Sir Roger Gale, who is among the Tory MPs to have publicly called for the PM to resign, said the situation was a "farce" which could delay a possible challenge to the "lame duck" prime minister.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's The World At One, he added that unless there is a "legal barrier", the senior official should publish her report "now and in full".

Asked by the BBC's Nick Robinson if the police's statement had been helpful to Mr Johnson, senior minister Jacob Rees-Mogg said: "It would be a very eccentric conspiracy theorist who thought that the prime minister being investigated by the police is beneficial for the prime minister - that is parallel universe stuff."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60177028

The fact that the government chose the uber-privileged Rees-Mogg as the one to wheel out to defend Boris speaks volumes for their insensitivity regarding  the issue that the public finds the most objectionable....namely, one rule for us, a different rule for them.

Meanwhile, crucial issues like adequate ventilation in our children's classrooms, which was pointed out to them absolutely ages ago, remains unattended to.