The birthday gathering with cake was an article in The Times and no one even noticed.
LOL. No-one cared at the time, because there was really nothing to care about. It’s only a story now, because of Cummings being vindictive and the Lobby trying to find a story. So we have this rubbish leading the news for a week, and the Leader of the Opposition calling for the PM to resign because his wife bought a cake to the office on his birthday.
You really are living up to the second part of your name this morning Mr Sandpit.
It really matters because most of this country went through hell during the lockdowns. We weren't able to visit loved ones. We weren't able to have birthday parties. In some cases we even had to endure loved ones dying alone.
Do you really not understand why this matters so much to us all or are you just trying the hardest to be the nastiest person on the forum?
Genuine questions. If you had known about this at the time from reading the article, would you have been outraged? Can you explain why there is outrage now but not back then?
I have felt recently that Boris ought to go. I am beginning to think that I have fallen to spin. I do not understand why it is apparently a resignation matter now but a story not even commented on 18 months ago.
The birthday cake one is irrelevant. Most of the others bar the Prince Philip one an early sincere apology would have been fine. The Philip one, the PM was not there so could have sacked the organiser and job done.
The real issue for me is the constant, obvious lying. Trust (not Truss) is vital, and if we accept a Trumpian world view of alternate realities for every event democracy itself will not last. The lying is why he should go.
And the attitude "if you can get away with something, that proves you were right"
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
It's probably in Labour's strategic interest for Johnson to stumble on into 2023 but not necessarily to fight the next election. He might even still have some magic with sections of the electorate but the Tory party would likely be paralysed if he lasts another year.
It's probably in Labour's strategic interest for Johnson to stumble on into 2023 but not necessarily to fight the next election. He might even still have some magic with sections of the electorate but the Tory party would likely be paralysed if he lasts another year.
Posters all over the place with Johnson with his pants on fire?
The Met Police is a complete and utter disgrace. Never been their biggest fan, but my god somehow my opinion of them has managed to get even lower than it was before.
Hope Sue Gray just released the report tbh and tells the Met to go and do one.
I think she'll be happy with this. It's a more comfortable position for her now.
No, her name will be associated with cover up for the rest of her life. A career ruined.
I'd just resign with a short explanation.
If she feels frustrated by what she sees as a cover up she ought to do something like that, yes.
As with the PM’s birthday cake, the test serial numbers issue was something that was first mentioned a few weeks ago. Does look like the BBC have gone for a deep dive on it though.
How does Mr Djokovic ever get a visa for any country, at least until the end of all Covid regulations?
Of the four Opens two of them require vaccinations.
He might be able to do the US Open and Wimbledon, but he can surely write off the French Open.
The birthday gathering with cake was an article in The Times and no one even noticed.
LOL. No-one cared at the time, because there was really nothing to care about. It’s only a story now, because of Cummings being vindictive and the Lobby trying to find a story. So we have this rubbish leading the news for a week, and the Leader of the Opposition calling for the PM to resign because his wife bought a cake to the office on his birthday.
You really are living up to the second part of your name this morning Mr Sandpit.
It really matters because most of this country went through hell during the lockdowns. We weren't able to visit loved ones. We weren't able to have birthday parties. In some cases we even had to endure loved ones dying alone.
Do you really not understand why this matters so much to us all or are you just trying the hardest to be the nastiest person on the forum?
I understand why people are angry, I’m saying that the anger specifically about the government is misplaced, and that events are being re-cast with the benefit of hindsight and a lack of knowledge as to what were actually the regulations at various times.
Talking of Times, the newspaper of record mentioned that the PM received a birthday cake, the day after it happened. Why didn’t everyone jump up and down about it at the time? Because at the time there was actually nothing wrong with it.
If that's the case, why do we have supporters of the PM suggest there wasn't a cake? Or that Boris "popped in" to that party or this party, or was ambushed? That the obvious garden party was a work meeting?
Who said there wasn’t a cake?
‘Ambushed’ is an interesting word, but I think it’s fair to say that the birthday gathering in No.10 was organised for Mr Johnson, rather than by Mr Johnson.
I post this simply to answer the question of 'who said?', rather than as some sort of proof that there wasn't a cake.
The issue of whether or not there is a cake seems a hilariously minor detail in the wider question of whether Boris should or should not be replaced as PM.
Cake-gate was clearly a no 10 leak to obfuscate and get people talking about the wrong things. Playing Cummings at his own games.
I think you could be right. Boris saying 'We're dealing with the vital issues - Covid, levelling up and restarting the British economy - while all the Right Honourable Gentleman has to talk about is cake...' pretty much writes itself.
The Met Police is a complete and utter disgrace. Never been their biggest fan, but my god somehow my opinion of them has managed to get even lower than it was before.
Hope Sue Gray just released the report tbh and tells the Met to go and do one.
I think she'll be happy with this. It's a more comfortable position for her now.
No, her name will be associated with cover up for the rest of her life. A career ruined.
Nah. Playing ball and keeping schtum would be a reason for advancement.
A police investigation on this, with all the resources of he Met shouldn't take more than a couple of weeks; and those couple of weeks should have started a while back. These are not, in the grand scheme of things, particularly large crimes that have been potentially committed. They are somewhere between speeding and shoplifting. Absolubtely enough for the PM to go (With the lies about it all) but not worth wasting time investigating something that probably falls down - certainly for the PM - as it was technically perhaps his property. The Met is off it's trolley here.
Perverting the course of justice
Think about it: there's 100 people here being given instructions to destroy by a lazy, panicking liar with an inadequate grasp of how IT works. In examining evidence for parties SG will *inevitably* have come across mismatches (messages on sender's device but not recipients and vv) and possibly written instructions to destroy evidence
I am embarrassed not to have seen this for myself this morning, but the theory has now been widely aired and is almost certainly right. This is no longer about parties just as Huhne was not about speeding
BJ to be destroyed by DPP, just not the one we thought
Really worried about the direction things are moving in globally. BA.2 and BA.1.1. seem to be sweeping to dominance in different regions rapidly. Pandemic growth has also resumed in many places including England, & more recently Gauteng. A thread looking at the current evidence.
As with the PM’s birthday cake, the test serial numbers issue was something that was first mentioned a few weeks ago. Does look like the BBC have gone for a deep dive on it though.
How does Mr Djokovic ever get a visa for any country, at least until the end of all Covid regulations?
Of the four Opens two of them require vaccinations.
He might be able to do the US Open and Wimbledon, but he can surely write off the French Open.
My thinking wasn’t particularly about the vaccination requirements, but whether any country would welcome him with a visa after the shenanigans in Australia? The US will certainly ask him if he’s ever been deported or refused a visa before.
He can probably turn up at the Baku Invitational, or the Doha Masters though.
The Met want us to believe that a report which if published in full would bring down the PM has to be altered because it would otherwise prejudice their issuing of fixed penalty notices.
Disgraceful. The Met is literally worse than useless. And yes, a cover up.
It's probably in Labour's strategic interest for Johnson to stumble on into 2023 but not necessarily to fight the next election. He might even still have some magic with sections of the electorate but the Tory party would likely be paralysed if he lasts another year.
I don't know if you want to be fighting an election during a new leader's honeymoon... Then again, the campaign seemed to actively end TM's so you could be onto something. Risky. If they're good, Labour is stuffed, if they have campaigning deficits then Labour might win, but Boris is a known quantity. How could you trust anything he says in a GE?
This is why Boris Johnson should resign/be forced out.
First official estimate puts French growth in 2021 at 7% - the highest annual figure for half a century! And ahead of the previous forecast of 6.7 or 6.8%. If confirmed this would make France the fastest growing G7 country last year
The UK data, when they are published, will probably show UK GDP growth in 2021 as slightly higher than that - around 7.3% I would expect - although UK GDP fell more than French GDP in 2020 (-9.4% vs - 8.0%). Both the decline and recovery in the UK are likely over-stated by the way the data are calculated. The big picture, as is often the case, is that differences between the two countries are much exaggerated, but France is probably marginally ahead taking 2020 and 2021 together, and that is probably down to Brexit.
Not at the moment leading to a Macron landslide though except against Zemmour. (who is now a poor 4th in first round polls)
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
As with the PM’s birthday cake, the test serial numbers issue was something that was first mentioned a few weeks ago. Does look like the BBC have gone for a deep dive on it though.
How does Mr Djokovic ever get a visa for any country, at least until the end of all Covid regulations?
Of the four Opens two of them require vaccinations.
He might be able to do the US Open and Wimbledon, but he can surely write off the French Open.
Ironically the French Open is the only one he can turn up to without a visa nowadays.
Think about it: there's 100 people here being given instructions to destroy by a lazy, panicking liar with an inadequate grasp of how IT works. In examining evidence for parties SG will *inevitably* have come across mismatches (messages on sender's device but not recipients and vv) and possibly written instructions to destroy evidence
And Sue Gray, of course, is very accustomed to trawling for electronic evidence across No 10 and the Cabinet Office, because that's what she had to do in her previous role as FOI gatekeeper.
While we are on the subject of investigations - and perhaps cheekily trying to get Ms @Cyclefree to comment on an F1 post - have a guess who was the chairman at last week’s F1 teams meeting with their governing body?
”The FIA's secretary general for motorsport and executive director of single-seaters Peter Bayer last week took part in a meeting of the teams' sporting directors, which the FIA says was part of the inquiry into Abu Dhabi.
“Masi chaired the meeting, but insiders say he recused himself when the subject turned to the operation of the safety car in Abu Dhabi and the consequences and ramifications of that.
“It was agreed at the meeting that, in future, the race director's actions have to be predictable - it was Masi's improvisations around and failure to follow the rules in Abu Dhabi that led to the outcry after the race.
A police investigation on this, with all the resources of he Met shouldn't take more than a couple of weeks; and those couple of weeks should have started a while back. These are not, in the grand scheme of things, particularly large crimes that have been potentially committed. They are somewhere between speeding and shoplifting. Absolubtely enough for the PM to go (With the lies about it all) but not worth wasting time investigating something that probably falls down - certainly for the PM - as it was technically perhaps his property. The Met is off it's trolley here.
Perverting the course of justice
Think about it: there's 100 people here being given instructions to destroy by a lazy, panicking liar with an inadequate grasp of how IT works. In examining evidence for parties SG will *inevitably* have come across mismatches (messages on sender's device but not recipients and vv) and possibly written instructions to destroy evidence
I am embarrassed not to have seen this for myself this morning, but the theory has now been widely aired and is almost certainly right. This is no longer about parties just as Huhne was not about speeding
BJ to be destroyed by DPP, just not the one we thought
From the CPS website -
" The offence of Perverting the Course of Justice is committed when an accused:
does an act or series of acts; which has or have a tendency to pervert; and which is or are intended to pervert; the course of public justice. The offence is contrary to common law and triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine. The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:
- an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or - investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or - proceedings have started or are about to start."
Note the first bullet point.
Given what the Met said publicly at the start of all this farrago and the fact that some of the potential offences may be time barred in any case (see the post from @DavidL upthread) it is quite possible that instructions to wipe phones might not be caught by this offence.
The Met want us to believe that a report which if published in full would bring down the PM has to be altered because it would otherwise prejudice their issuing of fixed penalty notices.
Disgraceful. The Met is literally worse than useless. And yes, a cover up.
Unless this is about perverting the course of justice
There's serious grounds to think it is. And if it is, that - delightfully - very likely implies porridge for Boris
Labour need to go in hard on the corruption angle here. Show that after numerous failures in her role Dick was given a stay of execution by the Home Secretary and now Dick is returning the favour. Starmer needs to fight this with actual passion, not lawyerly boring technicalities.
Starmer is not going to accuse the Met Commissioner of corruption. He publicly stood by her after one of her previous cock ups last year. Big mistake in my view.
How did the tactical commander who gave the erroneous order to blow away a Brazilian electrician going about his business on a crowded tube train, avoid having to clear her desk the following day?
Because it was unclear whether the surveillance team had given her a positive identification of the suspect. Either she or they were lying. On the balance of probabilites I thought it was the surveillance team. The fact that her career prospered subsequently suggests this was a widely held view.
The police management played the classic game.
1) The Police on the ground were left in front of the bus, inches from the wheels. 2) The people on the ground were informed that "we are all in this together". 3) With a subtext of "In my case I get early retirement on a full pension and write a book. You might go to prison and/or get fucked by lawyers for years" 4) Evidence starts vanishing. People at the shape end get memory problems.
Apparently the control room was a bit noisy, which confused things. Which apparently meant that any mistakes were forgivable.
The ability to shout "EVERYONE SHUT THE FUCK UP!" was not included in Police Senior Management capabilities, evidently.
I have very considerable sympathy for the team that actually shot De Mendes - they were given what they honestly thought was a lawful order, issued with due authority, in a matter of grave importance.
The fact that the game was played that "If you accuse anyone of incompetence, the front line guys *have* to get it in the neck" was disgusting.
They didn't like Dick, that's for sure.
The whole unhappy saga commenced with the surveillance officer [there was only one?] watching the suspect going for a call of nature at just the very moment when the suspect left the building. What followed was a farcical chase with confused messages back and forth to the control room.
The inquiry couldn't find a clear culprit and I'm not going to say I can but if I had to take a wild stab at what happened I should say that there was a certain amount of messing about amongst the surveillance boys and when it got serious they tried to mess her around too. In the end she felt she had enough of an identification to issue an unambigous order which of course they obeyed.
The fact she kept contemporary notes helped her a lot but it will always be guesswork as to what really happened.
Her subsequent performance in office does not incline me to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Really worried about the direction things are moving in globally. BA.2 and BA.1.1. seem to be sweeping to dominance in different regions rapidly. Pandemic growth has also resumed in many places including England, & more recently Gauteng. A thread looking at the current evidence.
The Met want us to believe that a report which if published in full would bring down the PM has to be altered because it would otherwise prejudice their issuing of fixed penalty notices.
Disgraceful. The Met is literally worse than useless. And yes, a cover up.
If you have read this thread there is a lot more to this and allegations against some civil servants could be very serious and at Crown Court level
Maybe this is Starmer's moment to attack Cressida Dick and the Met !!!!!!
Really worried about the direction things are moving in globally. BA.2 and BA.1.1. seem to be sweeping to dominance in different regions rapidly. Pandemic growth has also resumed in many places including England, & more recently Gauteng. A thread looking at the current evidence.
Oddly enough she neglects to mention that UK ICU occupancy is the lowest since July.....an oversight, I'm sure....
Yes, the pressure in the UK health system is in other areas than ICU this time. My department has taken down a lot of activity today, it isn't only me off with it.
In other bits of the world it has potential to be quite nasty still, not least in China and Africa.
The Met want us to believe that a report which if published in full would bring down the PM has to be altered because it would otherwise prejudice their issuing of fixed penalty notices.
Disgraceful. The Met is literally worse than useless. And yes, a cover up.
If you have read this thread there is a lot more to this and allegations against some civil servants could be very serious and at Crown Court level
Can I suggest that people read what the CPS has said re perverting the course of justice before jumping to conclusions.
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
7 day incidence in Germany appears to have slightly fallen today for the first time in a month. I say appears, because in parts of Germany the labs can no longer process all the PCR tests quickly enough, so people are being advised to self-isolate just on a positive antigen test without necessarily getting the PCR confirmation. I'm not sure how such cases are being counted, but I think it is a couple of weeks too early to have reached the peak in cases.
Really worried about the direction things are moving in globally. BA.2 and BA.1.1. seem to be sweeping to dominance in different regions rapidly. Pandemic growth has also resumed in many places including England, & more recently Gauteng. A thread looking at the current evidence.
Utter nonsense, no he's not. However, the relationship between Downing Street, the Home Office and the Commissioner smells very unpleasant.
Sadly, if Starmer actually went for the police, it is a simple fact that every decision that he took as DPP that could look slightly imperfect would be "bigged up " & leaked within hours. Probably some of the "allegations" would be entirely made up.
Probably would include an accusation that he called someone a "Pleb" - complete with an attestation* from a member of the public** that it happened.
* A photocopy of the police report. ** Retired policeman
The Met want us to believe that a report which if published in full would bring down the PM has to be altered because it would otherwise prejudice their issuing of fixed penalty notices.
Disgraceful. The Met is literally worse than useless. And yes, a cover up.
I doubt the report would bring him down regardless. But it is still nonsense.
With all the talk of people being asked to delete messages, I find it rather amusing that actually deleting them is even technically possible. There should be backups of backups of every message ever sent through government IT systems.
Unless we are talking about WhatsApp messages on personal phones, but why are those allowed near No.10 in the first place?
As with the PM’s birthday cake, the test serial numbers issue was something that was first mentioned a few weeks ago. Does look like the BBC have gone for a deep dive on it though.
How does Mr Djokovic ever get a visa for any country, at least until the end of all Covid regulations?
Of the four Opens two of them require vaccinations.
He might be able to do the US Open and Wimbledon, but he can surely write off the French Open.
My thinking wasn’t particularly about the vaccination requirements, but whether any country would welcome him with a visa after the shenanigans in Australia? The US will certainly ask him if he’s ever been deported or refused a visa before.
He can probably turn up at the Baku Invitational, or the Doha Masters though.
The US will ask him but money talks in the USA.
If he was a random Joe then he'd be stuffed. Multimillionaire tennis star going to a multimillion dollar tournament with sponsorship money on the line ... He'll get in.
As with the PM’s birthday cake, the test serial numbers issue was something that was first mentioned a few weeks ago. Does look like the BBC have gone for a deep dive on it though.
How does Mr Djokovic ever get a visa for any country, at least until the end of all Covid regulations?
Of the four Opens two of them require vaccinations.
He might be able to do the US Open and Wimbledon, but he can surely write off the French Open.
My thinking wasn’t particularly about the vaccination requirements, but whether any country would welcome him with a visa after the shenanigans in Australia? The US will certainly ask him if he’s ever been deported or refused a visa before.
He can probably turn up at the Baku Invitational, or the Doha Masters though.
The US will ask him but money talks in the USA.
If he was a random Joe then he'd be stuffed. Multimillionaire tennis star going to a multimillion dollar tournament with sponsorship money on the line ... He'll get in.
Does the phrase "rule breaking events" (as denied by Johnson in Parliament) mean illegal or does it include the guidance? Or was all the relevant guidance also in law?
Because I note the latest iteration is he wasn't aware of any events which "broke the law".
This is why Boris Johnson should resign/be forced out.
First official estimate puts French growth in 2021 at 7% - the highest annual figure for half a century! And ahead of the previous forecast of 6.7 or 6.8%. If confirmed this would make France the fastest growing G7 country last year
The UK data, when they are published, will probably show UK GDP growth in 2021 as slightly higher than that - around 7.3% I would expect - although UK GDP fell more than French GDP in 2020 (-9.4% vs - 8.0%). Both the decline and recovery in the UK are likely over-stated by the way the data are calculated. The big picture, as is often the case, is that differences between the two countries are much exaggerated, but France is probably marginally ahead taking 2020 and 2021 together, and that is probably down to Brexit.
That's a fair summary, I took the IMF projections forwards and it looks like at the end of 2023 the UK will have lost around 2.8% in growth potential and France around 2.6% in lost growth potential. Both countries have had almost identical pandemic responses, poor early decision making and Macron is very much in the "keep everything open" camp despite huge infection numbers like Boris.
The most interesting of them all is Germany which didn't have as big a fall as the UK or France but also having little to no bounceback and it seems as though they are already heading to trend growth so their lost potential could be significantly higher than both France or the UK. The other one I've seen that's gone a bit unnoticed is that the city consensus has downgraded all three countries' trend growth rate post pandemic which is probably a much, much bigger concern for governments than what this year's bounce back looks like. That will change long term tax growth expectations meaning structurally lower spending or higher taxes will be required.
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
Sue Gray seems to have been exemplary in this
Yes, if the aim is an establishment stitch up which Sir Humphrey would have been proud of, then exemplary indeed.
The Met want us to believe that a report which if published in full would bring down the PM has to be altered because it would otherwise prejudice their issuing of fixed penalty notices.
Disgraceful. The Met is literally worse than useless. And yes, a cover up.
If you have read this thread there is a lot more to this and allegations against some civil servants could be very serious and at Crown Court level
Can I suggest that people read what the CPS has said re perverting the course of justice before jumping to conclusions.
You really are utterly ridiculous. You blather about opinion polls incessantly, but you expect us to believe you're so ignorant about them that you think a 1% change in one party's rating is evidence of a "swing"?
You don't believe the rubbish you write any more than anyone else does.
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. But once again - deleting stuff from your phone or email before any police investigation has started does not generally amount to perverting the course of justice. See what the CPS has to say on the topic.
After it may do.
People are jumping to conclusions. And if the offence was time barred so no prosecution could have happened in any case what "course of justice" could anyone have been perverting anyway? These are complicated matters.
Really worried about the direction things are moving in globally. BA.2 and BA.1.1. seem to be sweeping to dominance in different regions rapidly. Pandemic growth has also resumed in many places including England, & more recently Gauteng. A thread looking at the current evidence.
Oddly enough she neglects to mention that UK ICU occupancy is the lowest since July.....an oversight, I'm sure....
She says: "To make things worse, UKHSA vaccine report paints a dire picture with vaccine efficacy"
Really? "Dire"? This is just disinformation now surely?
Horseshoe in action again. The only way the lockdown hawks can keep going with their spiel is to adopt antivaxx lies to pretend vaccines don't work.
The animals looked from lockdown hawks to antivaxxers, from antivaxxers to lockdown hawks, and lockdown hawks to antivaxxers again but it was impossible to tell the difference.
With all the talk of people being asked to delete messages, I find it rather amusing that actually deleting them is even technically possible. There should be backups of backups of every message ever sent through government IT systems.
Unless we are talking about WhatsApp messages on personal phones, but why are those allowed near No.10 in the first place?
I don't think it is, but people in a panic are very likely to have an easily detected stab at it
Apart from not understanding the tech, people have an odd delusion that what they do on computers is inaccessible in the same way the contents of their brain are. In the last 6 months people have been convicted of murder and of having sex with a dog, largely because they kept photos of the act on their phones
Really worried about the direction things are moving in globally. BA.2 and BA.1.1. seem to be sweeping to dominance in different regions rapidly. Pandemic growth has also resumed in many places including England, & more recently Gauteng. A thread looking at the current evidence.
Does the phrase "rule breaking events" (as denied by Johnson in Parliament) mean illegal or does it include the guidance? Or was all the relevant guidance also in law?
Because I note the latest iteration is he wasn't aware of any events which "broke the law".
Guidance is not the law. But he has I think said in Parliament that all the guidelines were followed. I strongly suspect that he - along with most of the police, many journalists and most of the country - doesn't understand the difference.
Meh. Lab -1, LD +3 is not good for the Conservatives.
Traffic light alliance at 56% so fairly clear what's likely to happen at next GE if that stays around the same level.
It's a Goldilocks poll for Starmer - good enough to keep him on course but not so good that the conservatives would feel obliged to remove the man at the top.
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. But once again - deleting stuff from your phone or email before any police investigation has started does not generally amount to perverting the course of justice. See what the CPS has to say on the topic.
After it may do.
People are jumping to conclusions. And if the offence was time barred so no prosecution could have happened in any case what "course of justice" could anyone have been perverting anyway? These are complicated matters.
I have seen thinner defences than your "underlying defence is timebarred" one, but I haven't seen one succeed.
You really are utterly ridiculous. You blather about opinion polls incessantly, but you expect us to believe you're so ignorant about them that you think a 1% change in one party's rating is evidence of a "swing"?
You don't believe the rubbish you write any more than anyone else does.
Actually it is his bible and yes, he does believe this nonsense
Does the phrase "rule breaking events" (as denied by Johnson in Parliament) mean illegal or does it include the guidance? Or was all the relevant guidance also in law?
Because I note the latest iteration is he wasn't aware of any events which "broke the law".
Guidance is guidance not rules.
The rules are the law.
@Cyclefree and others have been excellent at that point throughout the pandemic.
Forget about the pandemic for a second and think about eg alcohol. Guidance says don't drink more than 21 units per week for men. The law says don't have blood alcohol above a certain limit while driving. Drinking 22 units in a week is not a breach of the rules. Driving while intoxicated is.
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
Sue Gray seems to have been exemplary in this
She's probably wishing she was back in that pub in Newry giving drinks to IRA men.
Really worried about the direction things are moving in globally. BA.2 and BA.1.1. seem to be sweeping to dominance in different regions rapidly. Pandemic growth has also resumed in many places including England, & more recently Gauteng. A thread looking at the current evidence.
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
Sue Gray seems to have been exemplary in this
Yes, if the aim is an establishment stitch up which Sir Humphrey would have been proud of, then exemplary indeed.
So Sue Gray should, potentially, break the law, to publish?
It is my understanding that knowingly publishing material that may derail a prosecution like that, is itself an offence... PB lawyers?
38% for Labour after the last 3 months is very poor
Which is why the Tories, despite everything, can salvage a majority in 2024 with a new leader. Labour haven't sealed the deal with voters, but they don't want Boris to stay as PM.
Really worried about the direction things are moving in globally. BA.2 and BA.1.1. seem to be sweeping to dominance in different regions rapidly. Pandemic growth has also resumed in many places including England, & more recently Gauteng. A thread looking at the current evidence.
With all the talk of people being asked to delete messages, I find it rather amusing that actually deleting them is even technically possible. There should be backups of backups of every message ever sent through government IT systems.
Unless we are talking about WhatsApp messages on personal phones, but why are those allowed near No.10 in the first place?
It is the request that would be the offence, it doesn't matter that the deleted item can be recovered later.
I suspect that despite compelling evidence it will be determined that the threshold for a probable successful prosecution will be just missed. Not through conspiracy, but because that is the way the mechanics of the CPS work.
Paxlovid deployed in the UK from 10th February. Will be given to highest-risk groups including 'people who are immunocompromised, cancer patients or those with Down’s Syndrome', DHSC says. Will be delivered to homes of people who test +ve for covid or collected from NHS unit.
Really worried about the direction things are moving in globally. BA.2 and BA.1.1. seem to be sweeping to dominance in different regions rapidly. Pandemic growth has also resumed in many places including England, & more recently Gauteng. A thread looking at the current evidence.
She claims a VE of 80% against omicron - which is not the figure in your graph unless I am missing something.
I have no idea - I am just pointing out what the CDC found. Given that this was a massive study, with a background of huge numbers of unvaccinated and partially vaccinated people to compare against, conducted by a highly respected medical organisation.....
EDIT - I presume you are referring to the 5x for infections. Well, the CDC data seems to be showing that infections were about 250/100K for boosted, versus 1300/1000K for unvaccinated...
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. But once again - deleting stuff from your phone or email before any police investigation has started does not generally amount to perverting the course of justice. See what the CPS has to say on the topic.
After it may do.
People are jumping to conclusions. And if the offence was time barred so no prosecution could have happened in any case what "course of justice" could anyone have been perverting anyway? These are complicated matters.
At a speed awareness course I attended, it was commented by the trainer that flashing your lights to warn an oncoming motorist of a speed trap ahead was illegal because it was perverting the course of justice. Smelling bullshit I asked if a man was running towards the trainer with a knife should I refrain from stopping him because I would be perverting the course of justice?
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
Sue Gray seems to have been exemplary in this
Yes, if the aim is an establishment stitch up which Sir Humphrey would have been proud of, then exemplary indeed.
So Sue Gray should, potentially, break the law, to publish?
It is my understanding that knowingly publishing material that may derail a prosecution like that, is itself an offence... PB lawyers?
More complicated than that. The rule doesn't apply until there's an arrest or a warrant or a charge against someone
Really worried about the direction things are moving in globally. BA.2 and BA.1.1. seem to be sweeping to dominance in different regions rapidly. Pandemic growth has also resumed in many places including England, & more recently Gauteng. A thread looking at the current evidence.
She claims a VE of 80% against omicron - which is not the figure in your graph unless I am missing something.
I have no idea - I am just pointing out what the CDC found. Given that this was a massive study, with a background of huge numbers of unvaccinated and partially vaccinated people to compare against, conducted by a highly respected medical organisation.....
The claim is based on HSA report against the new Omicron sublineage, but the data is very preliminary and wide confidenc intervals.
The iSAGE crowd still act as if you can realistically prevent the inevitable which is everybody is going to get exposed.
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. But once again - deleting stuff from your phone or email before any police investigation has started does not generally amount to perverting the course of justice. See what the CPS has to say on the topic.
After it may do.
People are jumping to conclusions. And if the offence was time barred so no prosecution could have happened in any case what "course of justice" could anyone have been perverting anyway? These are complicated matters.
I have seen thinner defences than your "underlying defence is timebarred" one, but I haven't seen one succeed.
Agreed. Which is why it is complicated. But the better point may be the first bullet point in the CPS extract I posted. If there was no investigation underway and no reasonable expectation of one because any offence was time barred, is there a "course of justice". Without one, the offence is not made out as a matter of law. You could not even charge.
As I say complicated. A lot will depend on what was said, by whom and, crucially, when. And what the normal rules on deletion were. Plus what the people concerned routinely did re cleaning up phones / emails etc.
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
Sue Gray seems to have been exemplary in this
She's probably wishing she was back in that pub in Newry giving drinks to IRA men.
Presumably not in "Magennis' Bar" - though the toilets are very spacious there, I understand.
If you don't get the joke - it refers to another coverup.
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. But once again - deleting stuff from your phone or email before any police investigation has started does not generally amount to perverting the course of justice. See what the CPS has to say on the topic.
After it may do.
People are jumping to conclusions. And if the offence was time barred so no prosecution could have happened in any case what "course of justice" could anyone have been perverting anyway? These are complicated matters.
At a speed awareness course I attended, it was commented by the trainer that flashing your lights to warn an oncoming motorist of a speed trap ahead was illegal because it was perverting the course of justice. Smelling bullshit I asked if a man was running towards the trainer with a knife should I refrain from stopping him because I would be perverting the course of justice?
thoroughly bad decision in my view because flashing your lights should be parsed as an instruction to stick to the speed limit, and what is wrong with that?
"Nazir Afzal, a former chief Crown prosecutor for the North West, said on Twitter: 'This is absolute nonsense from the Met Police. A purely factual report by Sue Gray cannot possibly prejudice a police investigation.
'They just have to follow the evidence, of which the report will be a part.'
Human rights barrister Adam Wagner, who has spent the pandemic interpreting complex coronavirus laws and explaining them to the public on social media, said on Twitter: 'I am not a criminal lawyer so perhaps I am missing something. How would a factual civil service report about events the police is investigating 'prejudice' their investigation?'
The anonymous lawyer and author known as The Secret Barrister then added: 'I am a criminal lawyer, and I too must be missing something, because there is no reason I can see as to why an independent police criminal investigation would in any way be influenced by, or would seek to influence, a civil service report.'
Meh. Lab -1, LD +3 is not good for the Conservatives.
Traffic light alliance at 56% so fairly clear what's likely to happen at next GE if that stays around the same level.
It's a Goldilocks poll for Starmer - good enough to keep him on course but not so good that the conservatives would feel obliged to remove the man at the top.
Almost always Peter your words are very wise and insightful but, in this case, I think your analysis was wrong.
First of all, what you are saying about it is good for Labour that BJ is kept in place is exactly the same sort of stuff that was being said about Starmer by the Tories 12 months post-the Batley and Spen by-election. More to the point, Johnson has a history of coming back from events that would kill off the careers of most others so you want him permanently gone, not just written off.
Secondly, 38% for Labour at this point is absolutely dire given the circumstances, the flak Johnson has got etc etc. I haven't seen the sub-splits but what is becoming increasingly clear is that there is a small but crucial element of the Labour vote that has defected to the Greens post-Corbyn (as @BJO has said) on one hand and that Labour cannot convince much beyond its core base that it is worth voting for.
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. But once again - deleting stuff from your phone or email before any police investigation has started does not generally amount to perverting the course of justice. See what the CPS has to say on the topic.
After it may do.
People are jumping to conclusions. And if the offence was time barred so no prosecution could have happened in any case what "course of justice" could anyone have been perverting anyway? These are complicated matters.
At a speed awareness course I attended, it was commented by the trainer that flashing your lights to warn an oncoming motorist of a speed trap ahead was illegal because it was perverting the course of justice. Smelling bullshit I asked if a man was running towards the trainer with a knife should I refrain from stopping him because I would be perverting the course of justice?
thoroughly bad decision in my view because flashing your lights should be parsed as an instruction to stick to the speed limit, and what is wrong with that?
Do we add this to the list of crap decisions by the Starmer led CPS?
(For the avoidance of doubt I am obviously joking).
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. But once again - deleting stuff from your phone or email before any police investigation has started does not generally amount to perverting the course of justice. See what the CPS has to say on the topic.
After it may do.
People are jumping to conclusions. And if the offence was time barred so no prosecution could have happened in any case what "course of justice" could anyone have been perverting anyway? These are complicated matters.
At a speed awareness course I attended, it was commented by the trainer that flashing your lights to warn an oncoming motorist of a speed trap ahead was illegal because it was perverting the course of justice. Smelling bullshit I asked if a man was running towards the trainer with a knife should I refrain from stopping him because I would be perverting the course of justice?
Interesting ethical conundrum. Suppose a serial killer has killed nine people. It's only when he kills a tenth victim - getting careless and leaving some giveaway evidence - that he's apprehended by the police and convicted. If he hadn't killed the tenth he'd have gotten away Scot free. Is it ethically preferable for him to have killed the tenth victim or not?
Really worried about the direction things are moving in globally. BA.2 and BA.1.1. seem to be sweeping to dominance in different regions rapidly. Pandemic growth has also resumed in many places including England, & more recently Gauteng. A thread looking at the current evidence.
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. But once again - deleting stuff from your phone or email before any police investigation has started does not generally amount to perverting the course of justice. See what the CPS has to say on the topic.
After it may do.
People are jumping to conclusions. And if the offence was time barred so no prosecution could have happened in any case what "course of justice" could anyone have been perverting anyway? These are complicated matters.
At a speed awareness course I attended, it was commented by the trainer that flashing your lights to warn an oncoming motorist of a speed trap ahead was illegal because it was perverting the course of justice. Smelling bullshit I asked if a man was running towards the trainer with a knife should I refrain from stopping him because I would be perverting the course of justice?
thoroughly bad decision in my view because flashing your lights should be parsed as an instruction to stick to the speed limit, and what is wrong with that?
Magistrates hmmm. Legally speaking, can this be used as a precedent in other cases?
Really worried about the direction things are moving in globally. BA.2 and BA.1.1. seem to be sweeping to dominance in different regions rapidly. Pandemic growth has also resumed in many places including England, & more recently Gauteng. A thread looking at the current evidence.
She claims a VE of 80% against omicron - which is not the figure in your graph unless I am missing something.
I have no idea - I am just pointing out what the CDC found. Given that this was a massive study, with a background of huge numbers of unvaccinated and partially vaccinated people to compare against, conducted by a highly respected medical organisation.....
The claim is based on HSA report against the new Omicron sublineage, but the data is very preliminary and wide confidenc intervals.
The iSAGE crowd still act as if you can realistically prevent the inevitable which is everybody is going to get exposed.
Which is why the CDC report is very useful - lots of unvaxxed people to gather data on. Hence smaller error bars. We seem to be a bit low on the unvaxxed in this country....
Really worried about the direction things are moving in globally. BA.2 and BA.1.1. seem to be sweeping to dominance in different regions rapidly. Pandemic growth has also resumed in many places including England, & more recently Gauteng. A thread looking at the current evidence.
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. But once again - deleting stuff from your phone or email before any police investigation has started does not generally amount to perverting the course of justice. See what the CPS has to say on the topic.
After it may do.
People are jumping to conclusions. And if the offence was time barred so no prosecution could have happened in any case what "course of justice" could anyone have been perverting anyway? These are complicated matters.
At a speed awareness course I attended, it was commented by the trainer that flashing your lights to warn an oncoming motorist of a speed trap ahead was illegal because it was perverting the course of justice. Smelling bullshit I asked if a man was running towards the trainer with a knife should I refrain from stopping him because I would be perverting the course of justice?
thoroughly bad decision in my view because flashing your lights should be parsed as an instruction to stick to the speed limit, and what is wrong with that?
Magistrates hmmm. Legally speaking, can this be used as a precedent in other cases?
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. But once again - deleting stuff from your phone or email before any police investigation has started does not generally amount to perverting the course of justice. See what the CPS has to say on the topic.
After it may do.
People are jumping to conclusions. And if the offence was time barred so no prosecution could have happened in any case what "course of justice" could anyone have been perverting anyway? These are complicated matters.
At a speed awareness course I attended, it was commented by the trainer that flashing your lights to warn an oncoming motorist of a speed trap ahead was illegal because it was perverting the course of justice. Smelling bullshit I asked if a man was running towards the trainer with a knife should I refrain from stopping him because I would be perverting the course of justice?
In your example, it would be more akin to warning the knife wielder that the police are outside after he has stabbed the trainer. I love the phrase "speed trap" BTW, as if enforcing the law is a form of entrapment.
Meh. Lab -1, LD +3 is not good for the Conservatives.
Traffic light alliance at 56% so fairly clear what's likely to happen at next GE if that stays around the same level.
It's a Goldilocks poll for Starmer - good enough to keep him on course but not so good that the conservatives would feel obliged to remove the man at the top.
Almost always Peter your words are very wise and insightful but, in this case, I think your analysis was wrong.
First of all, what you are saying about it is good for Labour that BJ is kept in place is exactly the same sort of stuff that was being said about Starmer by the Tories 12 months post-the Batley and Spen by-election. More to the point, Johnson has a history of coming back from events that would kill off the careers of most others so you want him permanently gone, not just written off.
Secondly, 38% for Labour at this point is absolutely dire given the circumstances, the flak Johnson has got etc etc. I haven't seen the sub-splits but what is becoming increasingly clear is that there is a small but crucial element of the Labour vote that has defected to the Greens post-Corbyn (as @BJO has said) on one hand and that Labour cannot convince much beyond its core base that it is worth voting for.
Yes, still near zero chance of a Labour majority under Starmer.
He may still become PM in a hung parliament with the support of the LDs or SNP or both, however clearly voters are not making a positive vote for Starmer Labour as they did for Blair and New Labour pre 1997. Voters will not vote against Starmer as they did against Corbyn but they will not vote for Starmer either as they did for Blair.
If he gets in it will be because of an anti Tory vote, not a pro Starmer vote, a bit like Biden-Harris got in in 2020 on an anti Trump vote and are already declining in popularity
Gosh, yes. That's a huge swing away from Labour to the Tories, isn't it?
Swing to the Liberals if anything! As @NickPalmer has insightfully noted, there's a real opportunity to being back tactical voting in a huge way as long as Labour and the Libs can resist the urge to be mean to each other and gloat when they score discrete victories.
Does the phrase "rule breaking events" (as denied by Johnson in Parliament) mean illegal or does it include the guidance? Or was all the relevant guidance also in law?
Because I note the latest iteration is he wasn't aware of any events which "broke the law".
Guidance is not the law. But he has I think said in Parliament that all the guidelines were followed. I strongly suspect that he - along with most of the police, many journalists and most of the country - doesn't understand the difference.
It's an interesting point.
With the enormous caveat of this being up to Tory MPs - and I doubt they'll remove him unless polls say they need to for their electoral prospects - I think the technical legalistic way to get him, if it does have a chance, is the Lying To Parliament angle.
He told the House he had no prior knowledge of rule-breaking events. This (for me) includes guidance since in common parlance guidance + law = "the Rules".
So unless Martin Reynolds is prepared to say either (i) that he didn't check the May 20th party with Johnson, or (ii) that he did but misrepresented it as being within the Rules, the Lying To Parliament charge sticks.
This point won't be dropped by Starmer regardless of the shenanigans with Gray and the Met.
Paxlovid deployed in the UK from 10th February. Will be given to highest-risk groups including 'people who are immunocompromised, cancer patients or those with Down’s Syndrome', DHSC says. Will be delivered to homes of people who test +ve for covid or collected from NHS unit.
Does the phrase "rule breaking events" (as denied by Johnson in Parliament) mean illegal or does it include the guidance? Or was all the relevant guidance also in law?
Because I note the latest iteration is he wasn't aware of any events which "broke the law".
It seems to be an ever moveable feast, but without cake.
Comments
"if you can get away with something, that proves you were right"
The party late into the night with bottles of wine is a serious breach.
This nonsense is just demeaning and belittles the whole story.
He might be able to do the US Open and Wimbledon, but he can surely write off the French Open.
Think about it: there's 100 people here being given instructions to destroy by a lazy, panicking liar with an inadequate grasp of how IT works. In examining evidence for parties SG will *inevitably* have come across mismatches (messages on sender's device but not recipients and vv) and possibly written instructions to destroy evidence
I am embarrassed not to have seen this for myself this morning, but the theory has now been widely aired and is almost certainly right. This is no longer about parties just as Huhne was not about speeding
BJ to be destroyed by DPP, just not the one we thought
Really worried about the direction things are moving in globally. BA.2 and BA.1.1. seem to be sweeping to dominance in different regions rapidly. Pandemic growth has also resumed in many places including England, & more recently Gauteng. A thread looking at the current evidence.
https://twitter.com/dgurdasani1/status/1487008788016205830?s=20&t=Z8J9CSc7jicE1E2OdBrcUg
Oddly enough she neglects to mention that UK ICU occupancy is the lowest since July.....an oversight, I'm sure....
He can probably turn up at the Baku Invitational, or the Doha Masters though.
Lawyer not leader rings true, ironic really
Disgraceful. The Met is literally worse than useless. And yes, a cover up.
Latest French runoff poll from Harris:
Macron 54%
Pecresse 46%
Macron 54%
Le Pen 46%
Macron 63%
Zemmour 37%
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1486459576908193793?s=20&t=Mn4m6ZdU1LNxEi3n8eY6Rw
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1486455376212115465?s=20&t=Mn4m6ZdU1LNxEi3n8eY6Rw
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1486454840997912579?s=20&t=Mn4m6ZdU1LNxEi3n8eY6Rw
Elabe has it closer for Pecresse, 52% Macron 48% Pecresse and its previous poll was 50% 50%
https://elabe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/20220126_elabe_bfmtv_lexpress_sfr_les-francais-lelection-presidentielle-2022-et-la-primaire-populaire.pdf
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
BBC News - Novak Djokovic: Doubts over timing of Covid test
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59999541
https://www.politico.eu/article/8-u-turns-in-8-months-from-boris-johnsons-government/
”The FIA's secretary general for motorsport and executive director of single-seaters Peter Bayer last week took part in a meeting of the teams' sporting directors, which the FIA says was part of the inquiry into Abu Dhabi.
“Masi chaired the meeting, but insiders say he recused himself when the subject turned to the operation of the safety car in Abu Dhabi and the consequences and ramifications of that.
“It was agreed at the meeting that, in future, the race director's actions have to be predictable - it was Masi's improvisations around and failure to follow the rules in Abu Dhabi that led to the outcry after the race.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/60160969
How is he not suspended from any role with the FIA, while the investigation is to his bizzare conduct at the last race is still underway?
"
The offence of Perverting the Course of Justice is committed when an accused:
does an act or series of acts;
which has or have a tendency to pervert; and
which is or are intended to pervert;
the course of public justice.
The offence is contrary to common law and triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine. The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:
- an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or
- investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or
- proceedings have started or are about to start."
Note the first bullet point.
Given what the Met said publicly at the start of all this farrago and the fact that some of the potential offences may be time barred in any case (see the post from @DavidL upthread) it is quite possible that instructions to wipe phones might not be caught by this offence.
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 38% (-1)
CON: 32% (=)
LDM: 11% (+3)
GRN: 7% (-1)
SNP: 5% (=)
RFM: 3% (-1)
Via
@YouGov
, 26-27 Jan.
Changes w/ 20-21 Jan.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1487008778742550530?s=20&t=oQp2ZULDsTDqWYbcdIfb8g
There's serious grounds to think it is. And if it is, that - delightfully - very likely implies porridge for Boris
Maybe this is Starmer's moment to attack Cressida Dick and the Met !!!!!!
In other bits of the world it has potential to be quite nasty still, not least in China and Africa.
The link is here - https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-justice-offences-incorporating-charging-standard.
https://twitter.com/thisiskyler/status/1486847706815512579?s=21
Really? "Dire"? This is just disinformation now surely?
Probably would include an accusation that he called someone a "Pleb" - complete with an attestation* from a member of the public** that it happened.
* A photocopy of the police report.
** Retired policeman
Unless we are talking about WhatsApp messages on personal phones, but why are those allowed near No.10 in the first place?
If he was a random Joe then he'd be stuffed. Multimillionaire tennis star going to a multimillion dollar tournament with sponsorship money on the line ... He'll get in.
Because I note the latest iteration is he wasn't aware of any events which "broke the law".
The most interesting of them all is Germany which didn't have as big a fall as the UK or France but also having little to no bounceback and it seems as though they are already heading to trend growth so their lost potential could be significantly higher than both France or the UK. The other one I've seen that's gone a bit unnoticed is that the city consensus has downgraded all three countries' trend growth rate post pandemic which is probably a much, much bigger concern for governments than what this year's bounce back looks like. That will change long term tax growth expectations meaning structurally lower spending or higher taxes will be required.
They are very useful to us lay persons and indeed, very helpful
You don't believe the rubbish you write any more than anyone else does.
After it may do.
People are jumping to conclusions. And if the offence was time barred so no prosecution could have happened in any case what "course of justice" could anyone have been perverting anyway? These are complicated matters.
The animals looked from lockdown hawks to antivaxxers, from antivaxxers to lockdown hawks, and lockdown hawks to antivaxxers again but it was impossible to tell the difference.
Apart from not understanding the tech, people have an odd delusion that what they do on computers is inaccessible in the same way the contents of their brain are. In the last 6 months people have been convicted of murder and of having sex with a dog, largely because they kept photos of the act on their phones
I think whatsapp keeps backups in the background
Since the US has a large population of unvaccinated*, this is a very useful study.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/01/unvaccinated-5x-more-likely-to-get-omicron-than-those-boosted-cdc-reports/
It's a Goldilocks poll for Starmer - good enough to keep him on course but not so good that the conservatives would feel obliged to remove the man at the top.
The rules are the law.
@Cyclefree and others have been excellent at that point throughout the pandemic.
Forget about the pandemic for a second and think about eg alcohol. Guidance says don't drink more than 21 units per week for men. The law says don't have blood alcohol above a certain limit while driving. Drinking 22 units in a week is not a breach of the rules. Driving while intoxicated is.
It is my understanding that knowingly publishing material that may derail a prosecution like that, is itself an offence... PB lawyers?
I suspect that despite compelling evidence it will be determined that the threshold for a probable successful prosecution will be just missed. Not through conspiracy, but because that is the way the mechanics of the CPS work.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1487019768116822026?t=GIamVa3uIag02xUan1XeCw&s=19
EDIT - I presume you are referring to the 5x for infections. Well, the CDC data seems to be showing that infections were about 250/100K for boosted, versus 1300/1000K for unvaccinated...
The iSAGE crowd still act as if you can realistically prevent the inevitable which is everybody is going to get exposed.
As I say complicated. A lot will depend on what was said, by whom and, crucially, when. And what the normal rules on deletion were. Plus what the people concerned routinely did re cleaning up phones / emails etc.
China now has nearly half of the world’s offshore wind capacity from TheEconomist https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/01/27/china-now-has-nearly-half-of-the-worlds-offshore-wind-capacity
Still producing a lot of electricity from fossil fuels, but alongside their mass solar building, truly good news for the environment.
If you don't get the joke - it refers to another coverup.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/Driver-flashed-headlights-warn-motorists-speed-trap-fined.html
thoroughly bad decision in my view because flashing your lights should be parsed as an instruction to stick to the speed limit, and what is wrong with that?
"Nazir Afzal, a former chief Crown prosecutor for the North West, said on Twitter: 'This is absolute nonsense from the Met Police. A purely factual report by Sue Gray cannot possibly prejudice a police investigation.
'They just have to follow the evidence, of which the report will be a part.'
Human rights barrister Adam Wagner, who has spent the pandemic interpreting complex coronavirus laws and explaining them to the public on social media, said on Twitter: 'I am not a criminal lawyer so perhaps I am missing something. How would a factual civil service report about events the police is investigating 'prejudice' their investigation?'
The anonymous lawyer and author known as The Secret Barrister then added: 'I am a criminal lawyer, and I too must be missing something, because there is no reason I can see as to why an independent police criminal investigation would in any way be influenced by, or would seek to influence, a civil service report.'
First of all, what you are saying about it is good for Labour that BJ is kept in place is exactly the same sort of stuff that was being said about Starmer by the Tories 12 months post-the Batley and Spen by-election. More to the point, Johnson has a history of coming back from events that would kill off the careers of most others so you want him permanently gone, not just written off.
Secondly, 38% for Labour at this point is absolutely dire given the circumstances, the flak Johnson has got etc etc. I haven't seen the sub-splits but what is becoming increasingly clear is that there is a small but crucial element of the Labour vote that has defected to the Greens post-Corbyn (as @BJO has said) on one hand and that Labour cannot convince much beyond its core base that it is worth voting for.
This fiasco has dragged on far too long already.
(For the avoidance of doubt I am obviously joking).
I love the phrase "speed trap" BTW, as if enforcing the law is a form of entrapment.
He may still become PM in a hung parliament with the support of the LDs or SNP or both, however clearly voters are not making a positive vote for Starmer Labour as they did for Blair and New Labour pre 1997. Voters will not vote against Starmer as they did against Corbyn but they will not vote for Starmer either as they did for Blair.
If he gets in it will be because of an anti Tory vote, not a pro Starmer vote, a bit like Biden-Harris got in in 2020 on an anti Trump vote and are already declining in popularity
Swing to the Liberals if anything! As @NickPalmer has insightfully noted, there's a real opportunity to being back tactical voting in a huge way as long as Labour and the Libs can resist the urge to be mean to each other and gloat when they score discrete victories.
With the enormous caveat of this being up to Tory MPs - and I doubt they'll remove him unless polls say they need to for their electoral prospects - I think the technical legalistic way to get him, if it does have a chance, is the Lying To Parliament angle.
He told the House he had no prior knowledge of rule-breaking events. This (for me) includes guidance since in common parlance guidance + law = "the Rules".
So unless Martin Reynolds is prepared to say either (i) that he didn't check the May 20th party with Johnson, or (ii) that he did but misrepresented it as being within the Rules, the Lying To Parliament charge sticks.
This point won't be dropped by Starmer regardless of the shenanigans with Gray and the Met.
That is major news, and fantastic news. I wonder how much publicity it will get?