Forum Replies Created
- Posts
“Breaking the rules” and “morally wrong” are wholly different ideas.The first is a matter of interpretation and, like when breaking the law is in question, something to be decided on the evidence by those authorised to decide.
Morally wrong has no meaning whatsoever on its own. When someone uses it, in any context not just racing, what they are saying is simply that from my moral preferences it is wrong. No more, no less. And of course we have different moral standpoints as for example outside racing we currently see that there are those who do, or do not, regard the Hamas killings and the Israeli government response as morally equivalent. And those who do not see them as morally equivalent tend either to feel that Hamas was justified or that the Israeli respsonse was justified.
On the matter of whipping horses in races, the only point of practical importance is the judgement by whoever is authorised to make it as the whether the rules as they stand were broken. Whether we think the rules are good or not is a separate debate and one’s position on that may be from a practical viewpoint (eg they might or might not make racing potentially less unpopular) or one’s own moral standpoint (eg one believes that it is unacceptable to hit a horse, or perhaps any animal, at all, or acceptable within the bounds one regards as reasonable. Much the same as the debate over whether Parlimament should legislate as to whether parents’ should or should not have the right to smack their childen).
Whatever one’s moral position, it seems clear that the jockey concerned did break the rules and was presumably punished appropriately. No doubt if he feels either that he didn’t break them, or that the punishment is too severe in the specific circumstances, he will have the right to appeal.
Clivexx
Can you read?
I made no implication that she did what she did for honours. I wrote that, given my and many other people’s assessment of Boris, it would be no surprise if he had sought to influence both Dick and Gray.
The more one thinks about it, the more difficult it is to understand Gray’s decision (though it is of course possible that she delivered two reports to the PM, her completed one and the one modified to meet the Met’s concerns. I doubt that, because if she had, it would have become known, but it remains a possibility).
If indeed Gray has only submitted the interim report she has (a) failed in her assigned task, by not reporting what she has learnt even though it is clear she finished her inquiries, and (b) chosen an option which has had the effect of pushing the matter further down the road, maybe, according to the Met., for as long as a year. Cut it whichever way you like, (b) was essentially a political judgement and not the proper fulfilment of her assigned task.
Only she knows for sure why she decided on (b). For the rest of us it is a matter of conjecture. You don’t like mine (which was not put forward as definitive, based on evidence, but as a possibility based on experience). Fair enough. But it remains a possibility whether you think it plausible or not.
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.
“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.
“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.
“The logical answer to this is the one adopted in France, where the 3-y-olds don’t mix with the older horses except in Pattern races”
I’d very much welcome that, but I doubt bookies would. Having more 4yo and above handicaps (and of course 3yos only ones in parallel) would take out one of the more difficult elements in analysis (judging 3yos’ likely rate of improvement) and make the 4yo and above ones even more profitable for those who know what they are doing.
“Lee mottershead again saying dunnes team think independent panel don’t understand weighing room culture”
“Understand weighing room culture” is not the issue but, but as you say, taking a view as to whether conduct as described is acceptable in any context in this day and age.
Much like Yorkshire County cricket, really. Very unlikely what happened there was unique to that County, and maybe twenty years ago similar “banter” would have been more or less the norm.
And not dissimilar to the anti-semitic elements within the Labour Party and the anti-Muslim ones in the Conservatives.
Should Dunne’s team be successful it will be damaging to the image of racing.
“I’m still to be convinced by Starmer but he did the job today , a proper picking apart of Boris’s pathetic non apology.”
I thought he blew his opportunity.
After B’s apology, THE potential killer question was “did you see or know about the invitation at the time?”
A yes answer and he’d be facing a vote of no confidence straightaway.
A no answer offers two possibilities. First, it is proven to be a lie, in which case he is finished, under the Ministerial Code.
If “no” proves to be true (or at least no one can show it isn’t), and today Starmer would have had to accept it as true, the next question is, why, when you now see it was an entirely inappropriate party, is the organiser (your principal private secretary) still in post?
If B sacks him now, he increases the risk of other No 10 leaks against him. If he confirms the pps still has his confidence, then his apology looks insincere and he is condoning the party (not as if the pps is a young clerical officer, for whom a poor judgement would be understandable).
Personally I thought the allegedly forensic Starmer was poor and achieved nothing.
“I would have thought that Farage, of all people, would have approved of Australias strict border controls….or has he had a damascene moment too ( must be an epidemic of them!)”
Like Murray, a failure to understand the issues.
Farage, like many of us, is in favour of:
1) national governments, accountable to their electors, determining national policies, including those on immigration and indeed tourist requirements;
2) those laws, whatever they are, known and fairly applied (which weren’t in the case in D’s situation, as the Australian judge found);
3) personal choice about matters such as vaccination. (Bear in mind that just prior to Christmas, the British government’s figures showed that 75 people had died as a direct result of vaccination. Personally, I accept that small risk, because of the hugely larger number of more elderly people like me who have died of COVID, and am fully vaccinated. But it is well documented that COVID it is very much less of a risk, death-wise, for younger people and were I D’s age the balance of risk would be different and I might well have taken different decisions.)
Yes.
It is not a matter of tennis. More of always being interested when governments seem to abuse their power. (Which of course is why thick-as-crap Murray fails to understand Farage’s position).
“Trouble is there are photo’s of him at award ceremonies both on the day and day after he’s said to have tested positive.”
Said to be the more effective type of test, for which one has to wait for results, unlike lateral flow which is said to be less reliable but where the result is more or less instant.
It may be that he was tested on one day but did not know he was positive until the next.
Cameron was doing well until he made a mess of the EU business – he and the Chancellor got the public finances in reasonable order after the financial crisis and he had the guts to take on the Church and strands within the Tory Party re same-sex marriage. He is far more honest than Johnson and much less of a hypocrit than Starmer. And, at the personal level, a straightforward and decent-seeming chap on the two fairly private occasions I’ve met him.
As to Blair, it is true the involvement in Iraq was voted for by Parliament, but on a false prospectus.
“Rest of life in jail?
Wont be a popular opinion I’m sure but really?
I’ve not followed in depth but this seems way ott”
I think the problem is the possible maximum sentence for one of the convictions, 40 years. The others seem to be five or in one case ten year sentences. If it was “life” in an English sense, she’d get out in maybe 12 – 15 years.
Her best hope, assuming the appeals fail (and she has obvious grounds) is Trump winning in 2024 and pardoning her when, on that scenario, he leaves office in 2028.
What seems to be missing at the moment (though I may have missed it) is analysis of those for whom the Omicron variant is more than a short term, cold-like problem. Are they individuals who haven’t been vaccinated or is it causing serious problems for some who have?
If the former, then basically for the large majority it is no worse than a cold. And those who might be at risk from it have the remedy in their own hands.
But as has been suggested, we should have a much clearer picture within the next month.
“Only that the country is fed up with all those involved in Party-gate.”
I think the vote tomorrow will tell us something more specific than that. That many voters who normally support the Conservative Party (as less “big state” than Labour) can no longer stomach a PM who lies on a regular basis and who in general over-states and under-delivers. I am certainly in that category and simply will not vote Conservative again until there is a new leader.
“The whole thing has been such a bad look for racing”
Up to a point, but wherever you look within organisations there are aspects that make them look bad (eg No 10 at the moment).
What a proper hearing like this one does is (a) avoid the frequent criticism of behind-closed-doors affairs of being a cover-up and (b) provide an opportunity for improvement. Racing, and its public image, can only benefit if the relevant authorities use (b) purposefully.
From the reported evidence, the panel led by Mr Barker seem to have weighed it all up very carefully and reached the right conclusion. In particular, Mr Barker’s comments on the veracity of the two parties was clear and pulled no punches. Quite a number of other jockeys and trainers ought to reflect on their personal contributions/lack of contributions to the situation.
If the authorities do not respond purposefully, the sport risks the kind of thing facing football at the moment – a move to insert a government regulator in yet another area of life. And government, and regulators, have such a great track record, as we see almost daily with apologies for failures over Windrush, building regulations (Grenville Tower), and the Afghanistan withdrawal. It is not a matter of party politics. More that politicians, their teenage (in experience if not actually) “special advisors” and civil servants have little or no clue about running anything.
