- This topic has 852 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Boris making his stand regarding NI increases against the wishes of a number of backbenchers , Richie at his side , this has me puzzled , it’s his precarious position it seems a very strange move , I get the impression this report is going to be a total whitewash , more of interest is the met police stand , someone big somewhere else is implicated here , question is who
It’s not a question of who else is implicated; it’s about who the PM can convince to take the blame.
This is what the delay is all about- finding a fall guy and negotiating a deal with them.
When the left said the police should get involved I thought they might regret it.
Left wing media aren’t explaining very clearly the obvious reasons why the police are concerned.If the report comes out in full:
People yet to give their own story may…
a) Change what they say to the police in order to deliberately confirm something they’ve seen in the report.
OR
b) Deliberately change what they say to police in order to bring something they’ve seen in the report into question.ie Without it being in the report anything the police are told is more likely to be true.
Value Is Everything‘Helping illegals’
As stated before, crossing the channel to seek asylum isn’t illegal.
True, it is not illegal to cross the channel to seek asylum, Ken…
And of course all those caught crossing will apply for asylum.
But if NOT caught, how many effectively give themselves up to actually apply for asylum?
Many (probably the majority) of those NOT caught instead join Britain’s “illegal” economy.
Therefore many crossing the channel are “illegals”.And as I said: If there were camps in France / Europe for keeping those wanting political asylum – while their case is processed by Britain – then there’d be no need for them risking their lives crossing.
Value Is EverythingI’m ill and I’m legal
and not afraid
of the Bill
not KILL BILL but
run of the mill
More worried about Ben
who is robbin the till
and not protecting the ill
All governments do it
it’s part of their drillPowerful speech by kier today
He really is looking like the nezt leader now and if you look carefully, priti patel caught nodding along to some of it
“Boris making his stand regarding NI increases against the wishes of a number of backbenchers , Richie at his side , this has me puzzled”
Maybe that was the Chancellor’s price for not walking out on Boris over partygate.
I think it is probably difficult to imagine what Boris won’t do to stay in office.
Dick reverses on police investigation, and now the ball is kicked into the long grass (enquiry will be finished “within a year”) ? three further years as Commissioner.
Gray pulls back from what she should have done. Submit her full report, unredacted, to Johnson, who commissioned it, and passed the responsibility for publishing, delaying or redacting it to him. ? watch the honours lists over the next couple of years.
Tory MPs making a huge misjudgement as many of us (us being those like me who normally vote Tory) have made up our minds about this and them NOT getting rid of Boris makes them complicit in what has been going on. (The obvious thing to do with a piece of crap is to flush it down the loo.)
The May election results will be interesting. Boris and MPs happy to sacrifice hundreds of hard-working, mainly decent Tory councillors to keep a lying hypocrite in office.
Re the allegation made by Johnson regarding Starmer somehow enabling Jimmy Saville to escape prosecution this is fact checked here. It was also wrongly raised earlier in this thread I believe
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-britain-savile-idUSL1N2RP200“That’s a ridiculous slur against gray”
If you have spent as many years working directly for ministers (including as principal private secretary) as a member of the senior civil service as I have, then we have to agree to differ.
If you haven’t, you have no idea about what goes on.
I wasn’t aware you had to provide a CV in order to be able to express an opinion here.
Thanks for letting me know.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Loving the sar-chasm (I just made that up, quite pleased with it, actually).
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Anyone is entitled to an opinion. But, as on racing matters, some people’s are founded on more knowledge and experience than others.
This is the kind of letter I would have expected Ms Gray to send, given her remit.
“Prime Minister
You asked the Cabinet Secretary:
“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.”
When the Cabinet Secretary recused himself, I was asked to undertake the investigations and I attach my completed report.
I have liaised with the Metropolitan Police Service throughout and they are going to investigate some of the gatherings covered by my report to determine whether there have been breaches of the law. They have asked that minimal details of those gatherings should be published while their investigation is under way. These were those on …[dates].””
It was always intended to be a report to the PM, not one Ms Gray had the authority to publish.
Had she sent the PM the completed report, the proper process of government would be for him to refer it to the law officers for advice. They would have advised him of the status of the MPS’s request (ie was it just a request or a requirement of law?) and, if the former (which it seems to be) whether the public interest outweighed the risk of prejudice in a situation where the maximum penalties are fixed financial ones with no juries involved.
Unless the PM was advised by the law officers that publication of more than minimal details would be unlawful, the decision becomes a political one, properly for the PM and one in respect of which he would be open to questioning in the Commons.
The fact that Ms Gray did not send the PM the completed report in discharge of her remit is a matter of interest. Sending effectively a partial, interim report is a judgement on her part, the consequence of which most seem to agree is helpful to the PM by putting off, perhaps for up to a year, the day when the full story will be out.
One can only speculate on Ms Gray’s motivation. One possibility (among others) is that she sees it as advantageous to herself, and with the current PM (with recent allegations of how the Chief Whip has acted on his behalf in trying to subborn backbenchers) I find it impossible to discount that intimations have been made, the most obvious in relation to a senior civil servant is certainly NOT a brown envelope full of cash but a further step up the honours ladder, or an appointment (to a QUANGO or similar) after retirement.
It is a matter of analysis of a situation and what it might mean. Not a slur on Ms Gray.
My bingo card for the Sue Gray debate had ‘Sorry/Not Sorry,’ ‘Ukraine,’ ‘Brexit,’ but would never have guessed ‘Jimmy Savile.’
Boris Johnson will survive; that he is a liar has already been factored into the English vote, and the Tory MPs know this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.