Hunt could come out against Johnson and change the game now, conceivably.
Not at the party, not a supporter of Boris, but the leading plausible alternative candidate to the relative insiders of Truss and Sunak.
I don't think party members will support Hunt.
That may depend on the timing. If the Tories get a massive hammering at the local elections there might, just might, be a need to find someone who is seen as experienced and credible. Hopefully all but the most swivel-eyed members have moved on from their obsession with Leavers and Remainers and perhaps they realise they need someone who can actually govern.
Personally I'm waiting for the revelation that Senior Met officers attended some of these parties and that the Met therefore can no longer investigate and will have to be investigated by someone else and so it goes on until some poor farmer on the Isle of Mull who hasn't seen a living soul for 3 years finds himself having to investigate everyone else in the country as he's the only one left who hasn't done anything wrong.
He puts in his report only to find the Russians have taken over.
Something like this anyway.
Not sure about Mull. Over 2,000 folk there, and the island is notorious for its party culture. Them crofters can be wild.
I'd suggest Foula - truly remote island to the west of the Shetland archipelago.
Would have to be Rockall to be completely certain.
Hunt could come out against Johnson and change the game now, conceivably.
Not at the party, not a supporter of Boris, but the leading plausible alternative candidate to the relative insiders of Truss and Sunak.
I don't think party members will support Hunt.
This is his achilles' heel. On the other hand there may be some desperation for someone different more from the parliamentary party, than the members.
The only way he wins is if the alternative is ALSO a remainer lockdown enthusiast, and there certainly aren't the votes in parliament to put 2 of that type to the members.
Hunt could come out against Johnson and change the game now, conceivably.
Not at the party, not a supporter of Boris, but the leading plausible alternative candidate to the relative insiders of Truss and Sunak.
I don't think party members will support Hunt.
Agree. More likely "dark horses" are Penny Mordaunt or Ben Wallace. And, if it's to be a non-minister, then Tom Tugendhat. Hunt would be good to have back in the cabinet tho.
Personally I'm waiting for the revelation that Senior Met officers attended some of these parties and that the Met therefore can no longer investigate and will have to be investigated by someone else and so it goes on until some poor farmer on the Isle of Mull who hasn't seen a living soul for 3 years finds himself having to investigate everyone else in the country as he's the only one left who hasn't done anything wrong.
He puts in his report only to find the Russians have taken over.
Something like this anyway.
The farmer on Mull discovers that, due to an unused bye-law passed 26 years ago, he is guilty of a crime that he has never heard of.
So he joins everyone else in an investigation.
The Russians invade, but get caught up in an investigation of their customs forms and are stuck in the waiting room at Dover for ever, since there is no one to interview them.
Essentially, the covid divide in America is not red vs blue but is class based: the urban wealthy are very keen on covid rules, the unwealthy are not.
Which I think is not dissimilar to life in the UK. As a trivial example, on the Metrolink in Manchester, for example, masking seems much more common the Altrincham line than on the Manchester Airport line.
You know those people who told other people to delete (phone) records of the parties must be shitting bricks right now as the police have become involved.
Destroying evidence is a crime.
As I’m not a lawyer would you or Cyclefree clarify if that’s relevant here? I’m clear that destroying evidence during a police investigation is a crime however does the Gray investigation have the same legal status as a police investigation?
I suppose what I’m asking is, would destroying evidence/clearing embarrassing photos, be a legal offence in the parameter’s of the Gray investigation rather than just something that can be remarked upon and if the evidence was removed before the police investigation was announced can they be in legal trouble for destroying evidence?
Does a burglar get in more legal trouble, if he burnt the swag bag he used for the burglary, if he did it straight after the burglary as opposed to after being subject to a police investigation it’s a separate crime if he sneaks out at night and destroys this evidence?
The Gray investigation does not have the same status as a police one.
Remember that the police will be investigating breaches of the applicable Coronavirus Regulations. As the various reports on the CPS and Parliamentary reviews I've attached upthread show, they have often not got this right in the past when they have tried to bring prosecutions. Getting everything right this time will be critical.
This sad, sorry saga is reinforcing my belief that the Conservatives in general and Sunak in particular have shat the bed on this. They've had weeks to do this, and it keeps getting worse. If you are trying to defenestrate someone, do it. Don't pussyfoot around and don't do it on their timetable. The last couple of weeks have given a clear sign that the Conservatives have no self confidence, no moral compass, and no direction.
I would be very wary of putting any money on Sunak for next leader now. Tax and spend Rishi, about to slap job destroying taxes on hard pressed Brits? I don't think so.
I’d have more faith in Sunak being politically astute enough to ditch some of the prior tax rises / address the cost of living crisis
I expect that to happen in the next few weeks, even as late as the march budget
We are back to Autumn budgets and March / April spending reviews / updates.
Personally I'm waiting for the revelation that Senior Met officers attended some of these parties and that the Met therefore can no longer investigate and will have to be investigated by someone else and so it goes on until some poor farmer on the Isle of Mull who hasn't seen a living soul for 3 years finds himself having to investigate everyone else in the country as he's the only one left who hasn't done anything wrong.
He puts in his report only to find the Russians have taken over.
Something like this anyway.
Not sure about Mull. Over 2,000 folk there, and the island is notorious for its party culture. Them crofters can be wild.
I'd suggest Foula - truly remote island to the west of the Shetland archipelago.
Personally I'm waiting for the revelation that Senior Met officers attended some of these parties and that the Met therefore can no longer investigate and will have to be investigated by someone else and so it goes on until some poor farmer on the Isle of Mull who hasn't seen a living soul for 3 years finds himself having to investigate everyone else in the country as he's the only one left who hasn't done anything wrong.
He puts in his report only to find the Russians have taken over.
Something like this anyway.
The farmer on Mull discovers that, due to an unused bye-law passed 26 years ago, he is guilty of a crime that he has never heard of.
"I think MP's will be waiting to see the results of the police investigation, now. We can't prejudge that, and I personally won't be making any decision on my letter either way until it's complete. I know that other colleagues feel the same - there must be due process."
That is the big question of the day. Because it is. You look at it, especially in warm sun, and something inside is calmed and stilled. is it the changing changelessness? The eternity-ness? Does it remind of us of the amniotic wash of the womb? The maternal heartbeat of the crumpling waves? Never ending and reassuring?
Or is it the ozone? Or the promise of other places? Escape? Or the idea of sushi?
*turns to look at sea*
*is soothed*
There's sea and there's sea. I guess it's soothing knowing one's not in this.
Yep it's nonsense to say the sea is always soothing. Trying telling that to a trawlerman. Or anyone who knows the southern ocean.
Written by a typical landlubber metropolitan (Camden town) elitist who should have better things to do than sit on here whilst on a Sri Lankan holiday.
I’m not on holiday you humourless pigs nipple. I’m working from a temporary home. In the sun. By the sea. Which is why I’m not sightseeing
Two weeks ago I looked at the daunting number of assignments and commissions I had coming in. A lot of work. Now, I like my work. Sometimes I love it. But it is still work
Then I thought: wait, I don’t have to do this in Camden in freezing January and February. I can do it somewhere lovely and cheap and sunny and, yes, by the sea
I examined the possibilities (Covid permitting) and thought: yay, three or four weeks in Sri Lanka? What an excellent decision it was
Absolutely. The joy of the post-Covid world is that you can live where you like and commute by computer for so many of the occasions where your physical presence was needed.
Which is why we moved up here. That my clients are in Bucharest and I'm about to open an office for them in London doesn't mean I can't live in peace in the Scottish countryside.
BTW, all the talk of the sea. Its *epic* being here. The east coast from Fraserburgh to Aberdeen is mostly long sandy dunes and beaches, or the north coast where its massive cliffs and tiny fishing villages and small towns nestled amongst them. I can run along miles of beach, walk along clifftops then along the shoreline on the way back, see everything from gentle swells to towering storm waves battering in, and a stack of fishing trawlers and oil tankers. And a choice of functioning lighthouses.
Hunt could come out against Johnson and change the game now, conceivably.
Not at the party, not a supporter of Boris, but the leading plausible alternative candidate to the relative insiders of Truss and Sunak.
I don't think party members will support Hunt.
That may depend on the timing. If the Tories get a massive hammering at the local elections there might, just might, be a need to find someone who is seen as experienced and credible. Hopefully all but the most swivel-eyed members have moved on from their obsession with Leavers and Remainers and perhaps they realise they need someone who can actually govern.
Hunt polls almost as badly with the public as Truss and Patel and Gove.
You may as well keep Boris if you are a Tory if those are the alternatives.
George Monbiot wrote earlier this week about the dictatorial path he believes Boris Johnson is taking. He said that this week, Conservative MPs can halt the march. It seems like the road to totalitarianism is further along than he had assumed. I compared my undergraduate notes referencing Hannah Arendt's work and the signs are there, for the conspiratorial amongst us.
The use of the police to bolster the executive is straight out of the authoritarian playbook. In all fairness to Johnson he is a lot smarter than Trump. A revolution, and not a shot fired.
Unfortunately, whilst I loath The Clown more than most, I stopped paying attention after I saw the name George Monbiot and immediately the words sanctimonious twat popped into my head.
His recent pieces on the policing bill have been very good, and probably generated the key political and media impetus against the most egregious parts of it.
That's another reason the Johnson-Patel axis is a danger to all our freedoms if he stays ; Patel even wants to re-introduce the parts the Lord recently struck out.
Maybe, but he is still a sanctimonious twat. One of those journos who likes to come across as an expert on "things" and then when you dig, you realise he is an expert on nothing. If he were about twenty years younger he would be a Youtuber or an Instagram "influencer"
Monbiot is prepared to follow an independent line and take fire from his "own side". To whit, is supportive of nuclear power on climate change grounds and I saw somewhere that he believes trophy hunting should be allowed as it puts an economic value on the animals concerned and gives locals a reason to conserve them, even if he finds the practice abhorrent. I actually have some time for him.
You know those people who told other people to delete (phone) records of the parties must be shitting bricks right now as the police have become involved.
Destroying evidence is a crime.
As I’m not a lawyer would you or Cyclefree clarify if that’s relevant here? I’m clear that destroying evidence during a police investigation is a crime however does the Gray investigation have the same legal status as a police investigation?
I suppose what I’m asking is, would destroying evidence/clearing embarrassing photos, be a legal offence in the parameter’s of the Gray investigation rather than just something that can be remarked upon and if the evidence was removed before the police investigation was announced can they be in legal trouble for destroying evidence?
Does a burglar get in more legal trouble, if he burnt the swag bag he used for the burglary, if he did it straight after the burglary as opposed to after being subject to a police investigation it’s a separate crime if he sneaks out at night and destroys this evidence?
The Gray investigation does not have the same status as a police one.
Remember that the police will be investigating breaches of the applicable Coronavirus Regulations. As the various reports on the CPS and Parliamentary reviews I've attached upthread show, they have often not got this right in the past when they have tried to bring prosecutions. Getting everything right this time will be critical.
Thank you.
So effectively if people deleted “embarrassing photos” (aka evidence) ahead of the Gray report then they haven’t committed a crime however if they had deleted “evidence” (aka embarrassing photos) once under police investigation then they would have committed a crime.
In which case I presume that it’s not something now that would be considered and acted on by the Met (I know - as if they will consider or act but hypothetically).
Robert Peston @Peston BREAKING: Sue Gray will not publish her partygate report while the Met police investigate. So it will not be published this week and probably not for many weeks. This is some kind of reprieve for the prime minister. She will continue her investigation though
FFS this is in no ones interest.
There's an argument that this is very much in Starmer's interest. The story keeps rumbling on while the Government is holed beneath the waterline, every week or two Dom feeds another scrap to the ravenous newspapers, and the Conservatives retain their lame duck leader.
Not sure Cummings is going to be able to continue his stories while a police investigation is proceeding
What is the legal position? If you're accused of burglary and the police are investigating, is there a law that says I can't go round telling people that I saw you creeping around in a hoodie, jangling skeleton keys? It's a convenient excuse not to talk, of course, but unlike contempt of court for influencing ongoing proceedings, I don't think there's a "contempt of police" law?
But yes, its probably good for both Starmer and Johnson, and bad news for Sunak. The public weariness with the story will increase over time, though, so Starmer can't just keep asking questions on parties. I'd think the Labour line will be "Look at problem X (fuel prices, disruption, etc.), why is the Government so weak and preoccupied?"
I agree and I expect Cummings himself will be part of the Met investigation
There is no doubt every question will be batted away that this now a police investigation
The key here, as it always has been, what are conservative mps going to do
Batting away every question with "there is a police investigation" is surely a more damaging response than "wait for Sue Gray"?
The problem is that every time that answer is given, it reminds people that this is a CRIMINAL matter as well as being hugely insensitive at a time when family occasions were missed, people couldn't say goodbye to loved ones, the Queen sat alone to grieve etc etc.
If I were Number 10 at this stage, I'd be looking to 'fess up early, pay some fixed penalty notices, and end the police aspect sharp-ish. I don't buy the "well, this gives the PM some time" argument. Police crawling over it for any period is a horrible look (and the outcome of 'fessing up isn't actually people going into the dock in this case - the police issue a fine, and they write a cheque).
I agree
I think you've got confused. Saying "I can't comment pending the police investigation" is more damning for the Conservative Party. It is, however, Boris' best hope of making it out of February personally. And we know which one Boris cares more about.
Yes, the situation is clarifying. It's in the interests of the country for Boris Johnson to resign. It's in the interests of our politics for Boris Johnson to resign. It's in the interests of the Conservative Party for Boris Johnson to resign. There is only one entity for whom Boris Johnson resigning is not in their interests - Boris Johnson. His lack of concern for anything and anybody other than himself is laid bare here. It's a total QED on this should there still be those requiring it.
You know those people who told other people to delete (phone) records of the parties must be shitting bricks right now as the police have become involved.
Destroying evidence is a crime.
As I’m not a lawyer would you or Cyclefree clarify if that’s relevant here? I’m clear that destroying evidence during a police investigation is a crime however does the Gray investigation have the same legal status as a police investigation?
I suppose what I’m asking is, would destroying evidence/clearing embarrassing photos, be a legal offence in the parameter’s of the Gray investigation rather than just something that can be remarked upon and if the evidence was removed before the police investigation was announced can they be in legal trouble for destroying evidence?
Does a burglar get in more legal trouble, if he burnt the swag bag he used for the burglary, if he did it straight after the burglary as opposed to after being subject to a police investigation it’s a separate crime if he sneaks out at night and destroys this evidence?
The following are examples of acts which may constitute the offence, although General Charging Practice, above in this guidance and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this guidance should be carefully considered before preferring a charge of perverting the course of justice:
persuading, or attempting to persuade, by intimidation, harm or otherwise, a witness not to give evidence, to alter his evidence or to give false evidence; interference with jurors with a view to influencing their verdict; false alibis and interference with evidence or exhibits, for example blood and DNA samples; providing false details of identity to the police or courts with a view to avoiding the consequences of a police investigation or prosecution; giving false information, or agreeing to give false information, to the police with a view to frustrating a police inquiry; for example, lying as to who was driving when a road traffic accident occurred; lending a driving licence to another to produce to the police following a notice to produce, thereby avoiding an offence of driving whilst disqualified being discovered; agreeing to give false evidence; concealing or destroying evidence concerning a police investigation to avoid arrest; assisting others to evade arrest for a significant period of time; and making a false allegation which wrongfully exposes another person to the risk of arrest, imprisonment pending trial, and possible wrongful conviction and sentence.
It is likely that perverting the course of justice will be the appropriate charge when:
the acts wrongfully expose another person to risk of arrest or prosecution; the obstruction of a police investigation is premeditated, prolonged or elaborate; the acts hide from the police the commission of a serious crime; a police investigation into serious crime has been significantly or wholly frustrated or misled; the arrest of a wanted person for a serious crime has been prevented or substantially delayed, particularly if the wanted person presents a danger to the public or commits further crimes; the acts completely frustrate a drink/drive investigation thereby enabling the accused to avoid a mandatory disqualification; the acts strike at the evidence in the case. For example, influencing a vital witness to give evidence/altered evidence/false evidence, or destroying vital exhibits or frustrating a scientific examination; the acts enable a defendant to secure bail when he would probably not have otherwise secured it; the acts strike at the proceedings in a fundamental way. (For example, by giving a false name so as to avoid a mandatory disqualification or a 'totting' disqualification: giving false details which might significantly influence the sentence passed; giving details which may result in a caution instead of prosecution); concerted attempts to interfere with jurors; attacks on counsel or the judge; or conduct designed to cause the proceedings to be completely abandoned); a concerted attempt has been made to influence significant witnesses, particularly if accompanied by serious violence;
the sentencing powers of the court for an alternative offence would be inadequate.
Personally I'm waiting for the revelation that Senior Met officers attended some of these parties and that the Met therefore can no longer investigate and will have to be investigated by someone else and so it goes on until some poor farmer on the Isle of Mull who hasn't seen a living soul for 3 years finds himself having to investigate everyone else in the country as he's the only one left who hasn't done anything wrong.
He puts in his report only to find the Russians have taken over.
Something like this anyway.
The farmer on Mull discovers that, due to an unused bye-law passed 26 years ago, he is guilty of a crime that he has never heard of.
"you shag one sheep"
All we need is a bit of time travel and we have PB's first and best drama series.
Now if only there was a PB'er with literary skills, some time on his hands and access to London's finest literary agents .......
Essentially, the covid divide in America is not red vs blue but is class based: the urban wealthy are very keen on covid rules, the unwealthy are not.
Which I think is not dissimilar to life in the UK. As a trivial example, on the Metrolink in Manchester, for example, masking seems much more common the Altrincham line than on the Manchester Airport line.
Also, there have been plenty of anecdotes about (eg) mask compliance being higher in Waitrose than Lidl.
That is the big question of the day. Because it is. You look at it, especially in warm sun, and something inside is calmed and stilled. is it the changing changelessness? The eternity-ness? Does it remind of us of the amniotic wash of the womb? The maternal heartbeat of the crumpling waves? Never ending and reassuring?
Or is it the ozone? Or the promise of other places? Escape? Or the idea of sushi?
*turns to look at sea*
*is soothed*
There's sea and there's sea. I guess it's soothing knowing one's not in this.
Yep it's nonsense to say the sea is always soothing. Trying telling that to a trawlerman. Or anyone who knows the southern ocean.
Written by a typical landlubber metropolitan (Camden town) elitist who should have better things to do than sit on here whilst on a Sri Lankan holiday.
I’m not on holiday you humourless pigs nipple. I’m working from a temporary home. In the sun. By the sea. Which is why I’m not sightseeing
Two weeks ago I looked at the daunting number of assignments and commissions I had coming in. A lot of work. Now, I like my work. Sometimes I love it. But it is still work
Then I thought: wait, I don’t have to do this in Camden in freezing January and February. I can do it somewhere lovely and cheap and sunny and, yes, by the sea
I examined the possibilities (Covid permitting) and thought: yay, three or four weeks in Sri Lanka? What an excellent decision it was
Absolutely. The joy of the post-Covid world is that you can live where you like and commute by computer for so many of the occasions where your physical presence was needed.
Which is why we moved up here. That my clients are in Bucharest and I'm about to open an office for them in London doesn't mean I can't live in peace in the Scottish countryside.
BTW, all the talk of the sea. Its *epic* being here. The east coast from Fraserburgh to Aberdeen is mostly long sandy dunes and beaches, or the north coast where its massive cliffs and tiny fishing villages and small towns nestled amongst them. I can run along miles of beach, walk along clifftops then along the shoreline on the way back, see everything from gentle swells to towering storm waves battering in, and a stack of fishing trawlers and oil tankers. And a choice of functioning lighthouses.
I bloody love it up here.
I hope your view isn't knackered by all the offshore wind coming your way....
If there has been no VONC announced by Sir Graham Brady by COP Friday evening then I would bet on it actually, now the Gray report has been kicked into the long grass
Robert Peston @Peston BREAKING: Sue Gray will not publish her partygate report while the Met police investigate. So it will not be published this week and probably not for many weeks. This is some kind of reprieve for the prime minister. She will continue her investigation though
FFS this is in no ones interest.
There's an argument that this is very much in Starmer's interest. The story keeps rumbling on while the Government is holed beneath the waterline, every week or two Dom feeds another scrap to the ravenous newspapers, and the Conservatives retain their lame duck leader.
Not sure Cummings is going to be able to continue his stories while a police investigation is proceeding
What is the legal position? If you're accused of burglary and the police are investigating, is there a law that says I can't go round telling people that I saw you creeping around in a hoodie, jangling skeleton keys? It's a convenient excuse not to talk, of course, but unlike contempt of court for influencing ongoing proceedings, I don't think there's a "contempt of police" law?
But yes, its probably good for both Starmer and Johnson, and bad news for Sunak. The public weariness with the story will increase over time, though, so Starmer can't just keep asking questions on parties. I'd think the Labour line will be "Look at problem X (fuel prices, disruption, etc.), why is the Government so weak and preoccupied?"
I agree and I expect Cummings himself will be part of the Met investigation
There is no doubt every question will be batted away that this now a police investigation
The key here, as it always has been, what are conservative mps going to do
Batting away every question with "there is a police investigation" is surely a more damaging response than "wait for Sue Gray"?
The problem is that every time that answer is given, it reminds people that this is a CRIMINAL matter as well as being hugely insensitive at a time when family occasions were missed, people couldn't say goodbye to loved ones, the Queen sat alone to grieve etc etc.
If I were Number 10 at this stage, I'd be looking to 'fess up early, pay some fixed penalty notices, and end the police aspect sharp-ish. I don't buy the "well, this gives the PM some time" argument. Police crawling over it for any period is a horrible look (and the outcome of 'fessing up isn't actually people going into the dock in this case - the police issue a fine, and they write a cheque).
I agree
I think you've got confused. Saying "I can't comment pending the police investigation" is more damning for the Conservative Party. It is, however, Boris' best hope of making it out of February personally. And we know which one Boris cares more about.
Yes, the situation is clarifying. It's in the interests of the country for Boris Johnson to resign. It's in the interests of our politics for Boris Johnson to resign. It's in the interests of the Conservative Party for Boris Johnson to resign. There is only one entity for whom Boris Johnson resigning is not in their interests - Boris Johnson. His lack of concern for anything and anybody other than himself is laid bare here. It's a total QED on this should there still be those requiring it.
You know those people who told other people to delete (phone) records of the parties must be shitting bricks right now as the police have become involved.
Destroying evidence is a crime.
Did I not say it was Perverting the Course of Justice when that story first broke?
It is likely that perverting the course of justice will be the appropriate charge when:
the acts wrongfully expose another person to risk of arrest or prosecution; the obstruction of a police investigation is premeditated, prolonged or elaborate; the acts hide from the police the commission of a serious crime; a police investigation into serious crime has been significantly or wholly frustrated or misled; the arrest of a wanted person for a serious crime has been prevented or substantially delayed, particularly if the wanted person presents a danger to the public or commits further crimes; the acts completely frustrate a drink/drive investigation thereby enabling the accused to avoid a mandatory disqualification; the acts strike at the evidence in the case. For example, influencing a vital witness to give evidence/altered evidence/false evidence, or destroying vital exhibits or frustrating a scientific examination; the acts enable a defendant to secure bail when he would probably not have otherwise secured it; the acts strike at the proceedings in a fundamental way. (For example, by giving a false name so as to avoid a mandatory disqualification or a 'totting' disqualification: giving false details which might significantly influence the sentence passed; giving details which may result in a caution instead of prosecution); concerted attempts to interfere with jurors; attacks on counsel or the judge; or conduct designed to cause the proceedings to be completely abandoned); a concerted attempt has been made to influence significant witnesses, particularly if accompanied by serious violence;
the sentencing powers of the court for an alternative offence would be inadequate.
That’s really the point to my badly worded question - it’s clear that messing with evidence etc would be an offence in relation to a police investigation or a trial but if it’s a “work investigation” and you tell someone to get rid of embarrassing photos (ok you might get sacked) and then it later develops into a police investigation can that person then be done for destroying evidence as they weren’t destroying evidence for a trial/police investigation but were messing with a “work investigation”.
TL/DR would anyone really be shitting themselves for telling people to clear their phones for Gray now it’s moved to the police or are they ok by technicality?
Personally I'm waiting for the revelation that Senior Met officers attended some of these parties and that the Met therefore can no longer investigate and will have to be investigated by someone else and so it goes on until some poor farmer on the Isle of Mull who hasn't seen a living soul for 3 years finds himself having to investigate everyone else in the country as he's the only one left who hasn't done anything wrong.
He puts in his report only to find the Russians have taken over.
Something like this anyway.
Not sure about Mull. Over 2,000 folk there, and the island is notorious for its party culture. Them crofters can be wild.
I'd suggest Foula - truly remote island to the west of the Shetland archipelago.
Would have to be Rockall to be completely certain.
Having been to Foula, I can personally near-guarantee they broke lockdown laws. There’s only about 40 of them on the island, but they have a strong tradition of getting together to get absolutely shit-faced through the winter. As you would, on an island which is regularly cut off for weeks. What else is there to do? And there are zero police
How about the South Shetland Islands, there might be a solitary boffin there, willing to judge us all
You know those people who told other people to delete (phone) records of the parties must be shitting bricks right now as the police have become involved.
Destroying evidence is a crime.
As I’m not a lawyer would you or Cyclefree clarify if that’s relevant here? I’m clear that destroying evidence during a police investigation is a crime however does the Gray investigation have the same legal status as a police investigation?
I suppose what I’m asking is, would destroying evidence/clearing embarrassing photos, be a legal offence in the parameter’s of the Gray investigation rather than just something that can be remarked upon and if the evidence was removed before the police investigation was announced can they be in legal trouble for destroying evidence?
Does a burglar get in more legal trouble, if he burnt the swag bag he used for the burglary, if he did it straight after the burglary as opposed to after being subject to a police investigation it’s a separate crime if he sneaks out at night and destroys this evidence?
The Gray investigation does not have the same status as a police one.
Remember that the police will be investigating breaches of the applicable Coronavirus Regulations. As the various reports on the CPS and Parliamentary reviews I've attached upthread show, they have often not got this right in the past when they have tried to bring prosecutions. Getting everything right this time will be critical.
@Cyclefree Can you explain why Gray can't report until after the police investigation? I assume it is to prevent prejudicing a prosecution, but I don't understand why as anything in the report can be refuted or confirmed in court and if the report had been produced last week I assume that wouldn't stop a prosecution.
Personally I'm waiting for the revelation that Senior Met officers attended some of these parties and that the Met therefore can no longer investigate and will have to be investigated by someone else and so it goes on until some poor farmer on the Isle of Mull who hasn't seen a living soul for 3 years finds himself having to investigate everyone else in the country as he's the only one left who hasn't done anything wrong.
He puts in his report only to find the Russians have taken over.
Something like this anyway.
An ingenious reworking of The Trial by Kafka. I think it could be a goer
Ah ; Johnson coming to the Commons in an hour - but for a statement on the Ukraine. Sub-Churchillian mode engaged, away from the petty trifles and tittle-tattle.
Personally I'm waiting for the revelation that Senior Met officers attended some of these parties and that the Met therefore can no longer investigate and will have to be investigated by someone else and so it goes on until some poor farmer on the Isle of Mull who hasn't seen a living soul for 3 years finds himself having to investigate everyone else in the country as he's the only one left who hasn't done anything wrong.
He puts in his report only to find the Russians have taken over.
Something like this anyway.
Not sure about Mull. Over 2,000 folk there, and the island is notorious for its party culture. Them crofters can be wild.
I'd suggest Foula - truly remote island to the west of the Shetland archipelago.
Would have to be Rockall to be completely certain.
Having been to Foula, I can personally near-guarantee they broke lockdown laws. There’s only about 40 of them on the island, but they have a strong tradition of getting together to get absolutely shit-faced through the winter. As you would, on an island which is regularly cut off for weeks. What else is there to do? And there are zero police
How about the South Shetland Islands, there might be a solitary boffin there, willing to judge us all
An island cut off from civilisation sounds like an awesome place to be, when there’s a nasty virus going around the rest of the world!
Yes. Because hiding behind "I am the accused and have already admitted to having broken the law. The matter is with the police and therefore sub judice and you can't talk about it" will definitely hold.
Good point. It is difficult to believe any government is happening. Ukraine and the huge current delays at borders should be the headlines in the news.
You know those people who told other people to delete (phone) records of the parties must be shitting bricks right now as the police have become involved.
Personally I'm waiting for the revelation that Senior Met officers attended some of these parties and that the Met therefore can no longer investigate and will have to be investigated by someone else and so it goes on until some poor farmer on the Isle of Mull who hasn't seen a living soul for 3 years finds himself having to investigate everyone else in the country as he's the only one left who hasn't done anything wrong.
He puts in his report only to find the Russians have taken over.
Something like this anyway.
The farmer on Mull discovers that, due to an unused bye-law passed 26 years ago, he is guilty of a crime that he has never heard of.
"you shag one sheep"
All we need is a bit of time travel and we have PB's first and best drama series.
Now if only there was a PB'er with literary skills, some time on his hands and access to London's finest literary agents .......
There are several million of them, I believe. All in one Black Cab.
It is likely that perverting the course of justice will be the appropriate charge when:
the acts wrongfully expose another person to risk of arrest or prosecution; the obstruction of a police investigation is premeditated, prolonged or elaborate; the acts hide from the police the commission of a serious crime; a police investigation into serious crime has been significantly or wholly frustrated or misled; the arrest of a wanted person for a serious crime has been prevented or substantially delayed, particularly if the wanted person presents a danger to the public or commits further crimes; the acts completely frustrate a drink/drive investigation thereby enabling the accused to avoid a mandatory disqualification; the acts strike at the evidence in the case. For example, influencing a vital witness to give evidence/altered evidence/false evidence, or destroying vital exhibits or frustrating a scientific examination; the acts enable a defendant to secure bail when he would probably not have otherwise secured it; the acts strike at the proceedings in a fundamental way. (For example, by giving a false name so as to avoid a mandatory disqualification or a 'totting' disqualification: giving false details which might significantly influence the sentence passed; giving details which may result in a caution instead of prosecution); concerted attempts to interfere with jurors; attacks on counsel or the judge; or conduct designed to cause the proceedings to be completely abandoned); a concerted attempt has been made to influence significant witnesses, particularly if accompanied by serious violence;
the sentencing powers of the court for an alternative offence would be inadequate.
That’s really the point to my badly worded question - it’s clear that messing with evidence etc would be an offence in relation to a police investigation or a trial but if it’s a “work investigation” and you tell someone to get rid of embarrassing photos (ok you might get sacked) and then it later develops into a police investigation can that person then be done for destroying evidence as they weren’t destroying evidence for a trial/police investigation but were messing with a “work investigation”.
TL/DR would anyone really be shitting themselves for telling people to clear their phones for Gray now it’s moved to the police or are they ok by technicality?
That is the big question of the day. Because it is. You look at it, especially in warm sun, and something inside is calmed and stilled. is it the changing changelessness? The eternity-ness? Does it remind of us of the amniotic wash of the womb? The maternal heartbeat of the crumpling waves? Never ending and reassuring?
Or is it the ozone? Or the promise of other places? Escape? Or the idea of sushi?
*turns to look at sea*
*is soothed*
There's sea and there's sea. I guess it's soothing knowing one's not in this.
Yep it's nonsense to say the sea is always soothing. Trying telling that to a trawlerman. Or anyone who knows the southern ocean.
Written by a typical landlubber metropolitan (Camden town) elitist who should have better things to do than sit on here whilst on a Sri Lankan holiday.
I’m not on holiday you humourless pigs nipple. I’m working from a temporary home. In the sun. By the sea. Which is why I’m not sightseeing
Two weeks ago I looked at the daunting number of assignments and commissions I had coming in. A lot of work. Now, I like my work. Sometimes I love it. But it is still work
Then I thought: wait, I don’t have to do this in Camden in freezing January and February. I can do it somewhere lovely and cheap and sunny and, yes, by the sea
I examined the possibilities (Covid permitting) and thought: yay, three or four weeks in Sri Lanka? What an excellent decision it was
Absolutely. The joy of the post-Covid world is that you can live where you like and commute by computer for so many of the occasions where your physical presence was needed.
Which is why we moved up here. That my clients are in Bucharest and I'm about to open an office for them in London doesn't mean I can't live in peace in the Scottish countryside.
BTW, all the talk of the sea. Its *epic* being here. The east coast from Fraserburgh to Aberdeen is mostly long sandy dunes and beaches, or the north coast where its massive cliffs and tiny fishing villages and small towns nestled amongst them. I can run along miles of beach, walk along clifftops then along the shoreline on the way back, see everything from gentle swells to towering storm waves battering in, and a stack of fishing trawlers and oil tankers. And a choice of functioning lighthouses.
I bloody love it up here.
I hope your view isn't knackered by all the offshore wind coming your way....
"’m not on holiday you humourless pigs nipple. I’m working from a temporary home. In the sun. By the sea. Which is why I’m not sightseeing "
So @Leon imported a ton of flint into Sri Lanka and is knapping away in a bar that has run out of tonic?
It is likely that perverting the course of justice will be the appropriate charge when:
the acts wrongfully expose another person to risk of arrest or prosecution; the obstruction of a police investigation is premeditated, prolonged or elaborate; the acts hide from the police the commission of a serious crime; a police investigation into serious crime has been significantly or wholly frustrated or misled; the arrest of a wanted person for a serious crime has been prevented or substantially delayed, particularly if the wanted person presents a danger to the public or commits further crimes; the acts completely frustrate a drink/drive investigation thereby enabling the accused to avoid a mandatory disqualification; the acts strike at the evidence in the case. For example, influencing a vital witness to give evidence/altered evidence/false evidence, or destroying vital exhibits or frustrating a scientific examination; the acts enable a defendant to secure bail when he would probably not have otherwise secured it; the acts strike at the proceedings in a fundamental way. (For example, by giving a false name so as to avoid a mandatory disqualification or a 'totting' disqualification: giving false details which might significantly influence the sentence passed; giving details which may result in a caution instead of prosecution); concerted attempts to interfere with jurors; attacks on counsel or the judge; or conduct designed to cause the proceedings to be completely abandoned); a concerted attempt has been made to influence significant witnesses, particularly if accompanied by serious violence;
the sentencing powers of the court for an alternative offence would be inadequate.
That’s really the point to my badly worded question - it’s clear that messing with evidence etc would be an offence in relation to a police investigation or a trial but if it’s a “work investigation” and you tell someone to get rid of embarrassing photos (ok you might get sacked) and then it later develops into a police investigation can that person then be done for destroying evidence as they weren’t destroying evidence for a trial/police investigation but were messing with a “work investigation”.
TL/DR would anyone really be shitting themselves for telling people to clear their phones for Gray now it’s moved to the police or are they ok by technicality?
It is likely that perverting the course of justice will be the appropriate charge when:
the acts wrongfully expose another person to risk of arrest or prosecution; the obstruction of a police investigation is premeditated, prolonged or elaborate; the acts hide from the police the commission of a serious crime; a police investigation into serious crime has been significantly or wholly frustrated or misled; the arrest of a wanted person for a serious crime has been prevented or substantially delayed, particularly if the wanted person presents a danger to the public or commits further crimes; the acts completely frustrate a drink/drive investigation thereby enabling the accused to avoid a mandatory disqualification; the acts strike at the evidence in the case. For example, influencing a vital witness to give evidence/altered evidence/false evidence, or destroying vital exhibits or frustrating a scientific examination; the acts enable a defendant to secure bail when he would probably not have otherwise secured it; the acts strike at the proceedings in a fundamental way. (For example, by giving a false name so as to avoid a mandatory disqualification or a 'totting' disqualification: giving false details which might significantly influence the sentence passed; giving details which may result in a caution instead of prosecution); concerted attempts to interfere with jurors; attacks on counsel or the judge; or conduct designed to cause the proceedings to be completely abandoned); a concerted attempt has been made to influence significant witnesses, particularly if accompanied by serious violence;
the sentencing powers of the court for an alternative offence would be inadequate.
That’s really the point to my badly worded question - it’s clear that messing with evidence etc would be an offence in relation to a police investigation or a trial but if it’s a “work investigation” and you tell someone to get rid of embarrassing photos (ok you might get sacked) and then it later develops into a police investigation can that person then be done for destroying evidence as they weren’t destroying evidence for a trial/police investigation but were messing with a “work investigation”.
TL/DR would anyone really be shitting themselves for telling people to clear their phones for Gray now it’s moved to the police or are they ok by technicality?
That's get the timing back to last week and the launch of the Gray inquiry. What about deleting emails after the first news stories came out - on the basis of those 2 tweets that looks legal
Ah ; Johnson coming to the Commons in an hour - but for a statement on the Ukraine. Sub-Churchillian mode engaged, away from the petty trifles and tittle-tattle.
Indeed, if rebels have not launched a VONC by COP Friday they should shut up and get behind Boris and let him get on with the important task of being PM.
Any further action can then wait until the local elections and the Met report and unless Boris, as opposed to just other No 10 staff, is found to then have broken the law or sees huge Tory losses in May he can continue after that too
Yes. Because hiding behind "I am the accused and have already admitted to having broken the law. The matter is with the police and therefore sub judice and you can't talk about it" will definitely hold.
This just gets worse and worse for you.
But @hyufd may not be wrong, other than it might be years rather than months. I was a witness in an election fraud case. It was cut and dry and it was simple. It took the CPS 2 years to halt the case for lack of evidence. I was dumfounded.
It is likely that perverting the course of justice will be the appropriate charge when:
the acts wrongfully expose another person to risk of arrest or prosecution; the obstruction of a police investigation is premeditated, prolonged or elaborate; the acts hide from the police the commission of a serious crime; a police investigation into serious crime has been significantly or wholly frustrated or misled; the arrest of a wanted person for a serious crime has been prevented or substantially delayed, particularly if the wanted person presents a danger to the public or commits further crimes; the acts completely frustrate a drink/drive investigation thereby enabling the accused to avoid a mandatory disqualification; the acts strike at the evidence in the case. For example, influencing a vital witness to give evidence/altered evidence/false evidence, or destroying vital exhibits or frustrating a scientific examination; the acts enable a defendant to secure bail when he would probably not have otherwise secured it; the acts strike at the proceedings in a fundamental way. (For example, by giving a false name so as to avoid a mandatory disqualification or a 'totting' disqualification: giving false details which might significantly influence the sentence passed; giving details which may result in a caution instead of prosecution); concerted attempts to interfere with jurors; attacks on counsel or the judge; or conduct designed to cause the proceedings to be completely abandoned); a concerted attempt has been made to influence significant witnesses, particularly if accompanied by serious violence;
the sentencing powers of the court for an alternative offence would be inadequate.
That’s really the point to my badly worded question - it’s clear that messing with evidence etc would be an offence in relation to a police investigation or a trial but if it’s a “work investigation” and you tell someone to get rid of embarrassing photos (ok you might get sacked) and then it later develops into a police investigation can that person then be done for destroying evidence as they weren’t destroying evidence for a trial/police investigation but were messing with a “work investigation”.
TL/DR would anyone really be shitting themselves for telling people to clear their phones for Gray now it’s moved to the police or are they ok by technicality?
Robert Peston @Peston BREAKING: Sue Gray will not publish her partygate report while the Met police investigate. So it will not be published this week and probably not for many weeks. This is some kind of reprieve for the prime minister. She will continue her investigation though
FFS this is in no ones interest.
There's an argument that this is very much in Starmer's interest. The story keeps rumbling on while the Government is holed beneath the waterline, every week or two Dom feeds another scrap to the ravenous newspapers, and the Conservatives retain their lame duck leader.
Not sure Cummings is going to be able to continue his stories while a police investigation is proceeding
What is the legal position? If you're accused of burglary and the police are investigating, is there a law that says I can't go round telling people that I saw you creeping around in a hoodie, jangling skeleton keys? It's a convenient excuse not to talk, of course, but unlike contempt of court for influencing ongoing proceedings, I don't think there's a "contempt of police" law?
But yes, its probably good for both Starmer and Johnson, and bad news for Sunak. The public weariness with the story will increase over time, though, so Starmer can't just keep asking questions on parties. I'd think the Labour line will be "Look at problem X (fuel prices, disruption, etc.), why is the Government so weak and preoccupied?"
I agree and I expect Cummings himself will be part of the Met investigation
There is no doubt every question will be batted away that this now a police investigation
The key here, as it always has been, what are conservative mps going to do
Batting away every question with "there is a police investigation" is surely a more damaging response than "wait for Sue Gray"?
The problem is that every time that answer is given, it reminds people that this is a CRIMINAL matter as well as being hugely insensitive at a time when family occasions were missed, people couldn't say goodbye to loved ones, the Queen sat alone to grieve etc etc.
If I were Number 10 at this stage, I'd be looking to 'fess up early, pay some fixed penalty notices, and end the police aspect sharp-ish. I don't buy the "well, this gives the PM some time" argument. Police crawling over it for any period is a horrible look (and the outcome of 'fessing up isn't actually people going into the dock in this case - the police issue a fine, and they write a cheque).
I agree
I think you've got confused. Saying "I can't comment pending the police investigation" is more damning for the Conservative Party. It is, however, Boris' best hope of making it out of February personally. And we know which one Boris cares more about.
Yes, the situation is clarifying. It's in the interests of the country for Boris Johnson to resign. It's in the interests of our politics for Boris Johnson to resign. It's in the interests of the Conservative Party for Boris Johnson to resign. There is only one entity for whom Boris Johnson resigning is not in their interests - Boris Johnson. His lack of concern for anything and anybody other than himself is laid bare here. It's a total QED on this should there still be those requiring it.
Have you been watching A Very Secret Service on Netflix?
"Partygate report to be delayed for WEEKS because of police probe: Met chief announces criminal investigation as 'upset' Cabinet minister refuses to defend Boris's birthday party (so has Cressida Dick done PM a FAVOUR?)"
..says the Mail's banner headline.
It's as if the story and its momentum in the press has become too toxic to easily slide out of.
If there has been no VONC announced by Sir Graham Brady by COP Friday evening then I would bet on it actually, now the Gray report has been kicked into the long grass
I'm sure Boris must be jubilant that the police are investigating.
Boris Johnson allies warn Tory MPs getting rid of PM likely to lead to a general election
Chris Pincher yesterday addressed 70-strong 'support group' for PM including several Cab ministers
He highlighted May & Johnson calling elections
Nice job you have - you don't want to lose it now do you.
What a laugh. May called an election eleven months later, because she has a 24% poll lead. Johnson called an election because he had 288 MPs in the House, a minority of 43 short.
And in each case, it was THEM as the 'successor' that called it. Are the Whips threatening that Sunak would call an election? With a majority of 80 I doubt it (well, 76 at the moment).
"As a result of info provided by cabinet office and my officers own assessment I can confirm Met is investigating" says Cressida Dick.
I wonder what that phrase in bold refers to.
A deputation of her most senior officers recreated the scenes in Line of Duty where Hastings has to please with the DCC / DAC to please let him investigate wrongdoing (by the DCC / DAC) as the evidence is clear and self-evident.
Quite how HY thinks this is a good day for The Accused is beyond me. Only a few days ago the Gray report was being spun as likely to be redacted to death. Then demands to publish in full and we start getting leaks of just how damning the evidence submitted has been to prevent such redacting. And now plod are taking the "we had a party so what" approach of Number 10 and actually going after it.
We've gone from classic Whitehall hush job to Warts and All report but won't accuse him of anything too awful to "yeah we had a party so what it was only a cake" and plod having to investigate the stuff Downing Street can't lie about any more.
Remember that the straw that broke the dam was the birthday party. Deployed with beautiful timing by Cummings. And he has a further 24 Aces in his card deck to throw out at the most optimally painful time.
"As a result of info provided by cabinet office and my officers own assessment I can confirm Met is investigating" says Cressida Dick.
I wonder what that phrase in bold refers to.
You think it's a wagging finger?
I should imagine it is a result of the officers in question providing their "damning" evidence to the enquiry as private citizens, having previously been told by the Met that their evidence wasn't required, thankyouverymuch. Their evidence is now very definitely required as it always was and the Met certainly weren't trying to cover things up at a high level, oh no, it's just that wheels turn, the law takes its due course etc.
Yes. Because hiding behind "I am the accused and have already admitted to having broken the law. The matter is with the police and therefore sub judice and you can't talk about it" will definitely hold.
This just gets worse and worse for you.
But @hyufd may not be wrong, other than it might be years rather than months. I was a witness in an election fraud case. It was cut and dry and it was simple. It took the CPS 2 years to halt the case for lack of evidence. I was dumfounded.
Ex Met police officer has just said that as this is a criminal investigation the previous witness statement are voided as the police interview under police caution and new statements made
If true this could go on for a long-time but I am not qualified to say whether the officer is correct
Good point. It is difficult to believe any government is happening. Ukraine and the huge current delays at borders should be the headlines in the news.
I worked for a certain large oil company, with a famous and prominent landmark London office. A tower, from the days when towers were unusual.
In the aftermath of 7/11 they commissioned a report from an external consultancy. An unusually stupid external consultancy.
The report was on the world wide effect on said oil company if the HQ building was destroyed.
The fools in the external company diligently reported that it would have no noticeable effect on the operations of the oil company. Which implied that profits would go up - since without the cost of the HQ and staff.....
The report was, of course, denounced as useless. And the external company marked as "do not use".
By the directors sitting on the top floor of said building.
While we are all focused on partygate, Omicron OMG, alias BA2, is still out there, lurking. It has completely overtaken BA1 infections in Denmark, and is rising exponentially, from a low base, in the Netherlands, UK, Germany and France. Is this something to worry about?
Yes, perhaps:
“After contracting Omicron, “we could potentially recontaminate ourselves with BA.2”, warns Olivier Véran #BA2 #Variant”
You know those people who told other people to delete (phone) records of the parties must be shitting bricks right now as the police have become involved.
Destroying evidence is a crime.
As I’m not a lawyer would you or Cyclefree clarify if that’s relevant here? I’m clear that destroying evidence during a police investigation is a crime however does the Gray investigation have the same legal status as a police investigation?
I suppose what I’m asking is, would destroying evidence/clearing embarrassing photos, be a legal offence in the parameter’s of the Gray investigation rather than just something that can be remarked upon and if the evidence was removed before the police investigation was announced can they be in legal trouble for destroying evidence?
Does a burglar get in more legal trouble, if he burnt the swag bag he used for the burglary, if he did it straight after the burglary as opposed to after being subject to a police investigation it’s a separate crime if he sneaks out at night and destroys this evidence?
The Gray investigation does not have the same status as a police one.
Remember that the police will be investigating breaches of the applicable Coronavirus Regulations. As the various reports on the CPS and Parliamentary reviews I've attached upthread show, they have often not got this right in the past when they have tried to bring prosecutions. Getting everything right this time will be critical.
@Cyclefree Can you explain why Gray can't report until after the police investigation? I assume it is to prevent prejudicing a prosecution, but I don't understand why as anything in the report can be refuted or confirmed in court and if the report had been produced last week I assume that wouldn't stop a prosecution.
It's down to the Terms of Reference I understand.
An internal disciplinary report could certainly be concluded and action taken. But the problem here is that if you uncover evidence of a potential crime and you report it to the police then the police will want their investigation to take precedence.
We had just this issue in the Adoboli case. Disciplinary proceedings against some of his colleagues could only take place once it was confirmed that the police would not be charging them. The final FCA report into the bank was not published until after the conclusion of the criminal trial etc.
When the original Case investigation was set up I suspect little thought was given to the implications hence the current mess.
Has a sitting Prime Minister ever been investigated by the police for crimes whilst in office before? I recall Blair was questioned under caution in 2004/5. Is this the same thing?
Johnson should resign. It is completely unacceptable to be even in this position, let alone try to think you can brazen it out.
Apologies if anybody's made this point before, but there's a limit to the number of comments I have time to read....
Putting on one side the hypocrisy of making rules that apparently don't apply to you, the rule maker, did the rule makers not believe "the science" that they claimed necessitated those rules? Because if they had believed it, the reason for not having gatherings, not singing and filling the air with virus aerosols, and so on, was to minimise the risk of people catching COVID, right? And these were supposedly people important to the running of the country during a crisis, right? And given that we'd seen the Fat Owl of the Remove laid up in intensive care with COVID, and thus putting the country in the questionable care of one Dominic Raab, shouldn't the responsible thing be to try and minimise the risk of something similar happening again?
But hey, Downing St is quite possibly a parallel universe where none of this applies.
Ah ; Johnson coming to the Commons in an hour - but for a statement on the Ukraine. Sub-Churchillian mode engaged, away from the petty trifles and tittle-tattle.
Indeed, if rebels have not launched a VONC by COP Friday they should shut up and get behind Boris and let him get on with the important task of being PM.
Any further action can then wait until the local elections and the Met report and unless Boris, as opposed to just other No 10 staff, is found to then have broken the law or sees huge Tory losses in May he can continue after that too
He HAS broken the law. He has CONFESSED to breaking the law. Repeatedly. And now even the Met who refused to get involved have no choice when the evidence is both self-evident and accompanied by a confession.
There is no moral fig leaf for you to hide behind any more. Your man is a crook. You are defending the actions of a crook. The criminal PM who thinks the law only applies to little people like you and stupid people who will defend anything he does. Like you.
Just seen the news, this abuse of democracy has actually made me feel sick in the pit of my stomach. It shouldn’t be hard to get 54 letters in. If they can’t manage that and allow this lying crook to swagger on at a time of international emergency, then none of them deserve to be re-elected and it might be decades before I next dare put a cross against the name of any Conservative candidate.
If a terrible new variant arrives in a few months there will be no lockdown remotely possible while PM is under investigation by the police for breaking his own lockdown rules last time.
Boris Johnson allies warn Tory MPs getting rid of PM likely to lead to a general election
Chris Pincher yesterday addressed 70-strong 'support group' for PM including several Cab ministers
He highlighted May & Johnson calling elections
Nice job you have - you don't want to lose it now do you.
What a laugh. May called an election eleven months later, because she has a 24% poll lead. Johnson called an election because he had 288 MPs in the House, a minority of 43 short.
And in each case, it was THEM as the 'successor' that called it. Are the Whips threatening that Sunak would call an election? With a majority of 80 I doubt it (well, 76 at the moment).
Don't forget there's only two years left soon in this Parliament realistically.
Quite possible that Sunak might feel he could get say a 50 seat majority after taking over, which would be good enough for him, give him his own mandate, and reset the clock so he has five years not two.
Majority falling from 80 to 50 seats is OK for the PM. If you're in a marginal and may be one of the thirty lost on the other hand . . .
It is likely that perverting the course of justice will be the appropriate charge when:
the acts wrongfully expose another person to risk of arrest or prosecution; the obstruction of a police investigation is premeditated, prolonged or elaborate; the acts hide from the police the commission of a serious crime; a police investigation into serious crime has been significantly or wholly frustrated or misled; the arrest of a wanted person for a serious crime has been prevented or substantially delayed, particularly if the wanted person presents a danger to the public or commits further crimes; the acts completely frustrate a drink/drive investigation thereby enabling the accused to avoid a mandatory disqualification; the acts strike at the evidence in the case. For example, influencing a vital witness to give evidence/altered evidence/false evidence, or destroying vital exhibits or frustrating a scientific examination; the acts enable a defendant to secure bail when he would probably not have otherwise secured it; the acts strike at the proceedings in a fundamental way. (For example, by giving a false name so as to avoid a mandatory disqualification or a 'totting' disqualification: giving false details which might significantly influence the sentence passed; giving details which may result in a caution instead of prosecution); concerted attempts to interfere with jurors; attacks on counsel or the judge; or conduct designed to cause the proceedings to be completely abandoned); a concerted attempt has been made to influence significant witnesses, particularly if accompanied by serious violence;
the sentencing powers of the court for an alternative offence would be inadequate.
That’s really the point to my badly worded question - it’s clear that messing with evidence etc would be an offence in relation to a police investigation or a trial but if it’s a “work investigation” and you tell someone to get rid of embarrassing photos (ok you might get sacked) and then it later develops into a police investigation can that person then be done for destroying evidence as they weren’t destroying evidence for a trial/police investigation but were messing with a “work investigation”.
Can we look forward to the prime minister claiming the deletion of emails was purely work-related?
Essentially, the covid divide in America is not red vs blue but is class based: the urban wealthy are very keen on covid rules, the unwealthy are not.
Which I think is not dissimilar to life in the UK. As a trivial example, on the Metrolink in Manchester, for example, masking seems much more common the Altrincham line than on the Manchester Airport line.
Trafford Bar, Stretford, Dane Road, Timperley and Broadheath - the Rolls Royce density is what....? Zero squared?
The idea that there is a personal BoJo vote that might be lost if he is ditched doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The reason that the Tories are still polling into the thirties and even recover a bit until the next revelation in a weird sort of rhythm is that there is a big reservoir of anti-labour sentiment. The Tories would be wise to act soon though as delay will weaken them long-term. Is there any exit path carrot to persuade the blighter to resign? There are plenty of sticks but it seems to need a big club.
It looks like removing Boris Johnson is now going to be left to the electorate.
It is likely that perverting the course of justice will be the appropriate charge when:
the acts wrongfully expose another person to risk of arrest or prosecution; the obstruction of a police investigation is premeditated, prolonged or elaborate; the acts hide from the police the commission of a serious crime; a police investigation into serious crime has been significantly or wholly frustrated or misled; the arrest of a wanted person for a serious crime has been prevented or substantially delayed, particularly if the wanted person presents a danger to the public or commits further crimes; the acts completely frustrate a drink/drive investigation thereby enabling the accused to avoid a mandatory disqualification; the acts strike at the evidence in the case. For example, influencing a vital witness to give evidence/altered evidence/false evidence, or destroying vital exhibits or frustrating a scientific examination; the acts enable a defendant to secure bail when he would probably not have otherwise secured it; the acts strike at the proceedings in a fundamental way. (For example, by giving a false name so as to avoid a mandatory disqualification or a 'totting' disqualification: giving false details which might significantly influence the sentence passed; giving details which may result in a caution instead of prosecution); concerted attempts to interfere with jurors; attacks on counsel or the judge; or conduct designed to cause the proceedings to be completely abandoned); a concerted attempt has been made to influence significant witnesses, particularly if accompanied by serious violence;
the sentencing powers of the court for an alternative offence would be inadequate.
That’s really the point to my badly worded question - it’s clear that messing with evidence etc would be an offence in relation to a police investigation or a trial but if it’s a “work investigation” and you tell someone to get rid of embarrassing photos (ok you might get sacked) and then it later develops into a police investigation can that person then be done for destroying evidence as they weren’t destroying evidence for a trial/police investigation but were messing with a “work investigation”.
Can we look forward to the prime minister claiming the deletion of emails was purely work-related?
If my past as a hired assassin comes out then I’m definitely using the “work related” murder defence.
* I'm using 2016 to 2020. The ONS are using 2016 to 2019 and 2021, which seems silly to me. I guess they don't want to switch at the end of March, which is what I will do, and think it's best to have the five-year average inflated by COVID now but then not so much after March.
Just coming back to this, I wonder if this is helping...
Of people aged 65 and over, 81.4% have already come forward for their flu vaccination this season, according to the latest data from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). This is the highest uptake in this age group on record, above the end of season uptake of 80.9% last year.
That is the big question of the day. Because it is. You look at it, especially in warm sun, and something inside is calmed and stilled. is it the changing changelessness? The eternity-ness? Does it remind of us of the amniotic wash of the womb? The maternal heartbeat of the crumpling waves? Never ending and reassuring?
Or is it the ozone? Or the promise of other places? Escape? Or the idea of sushi?
*turns to look at sea*
*is soothed*
There's sea and there's sea. I guess it's soothing knowing one's not in this.
Yep it's nonsense to say the sea is always soothing. Trying telling that to a trawlerman. Or anyone who knows the southern ocean.
Written by a typical landlubber metropolitan (Camden town) elitist who should have better things to do than sit on here whilst on a Sri Lankan holiday.
I’m not on holiday you humourless pigs nipple. I’m working from a temporary home. In the sun. By the sea. Which is why I’m not sightseeing
Two weeks ago I looked at the daunting number of assignments and commissions I had coming in. A lot of work. Now, I like my work. Sometimes I love it. But it is still work
Then I thought: wait, I don’t have to do this in Camden in freezing January and February. I can do it somewhere lovely and cheap and sunny and, yes, by the sea
I examined the possibilities (Covid permitting) and thought: yay, three or four weeks in Sri Lanka? What an excellent decision it was
Absolutely. The joy of the post-Covid world is that you can live where you like and commute by computer for so many of the occasions where your physical presence was needed.
Which is why we moved up here. That my clients are in Bucharest and I'm about to open an office for them in London doesn't mean I can't live in peace in the Scottish countryside.
BTW, all the talk of the sea. Its *epic* being here. The east coast from Fraserburgh to Aberdeen is mostly long sandy dunes and beaches, or the north coast where its massive cliffs and tiny fishing villages and small towns nestled amongst them. I can run along miles of beach, walk along clifftops then along the shoreline on the way back, see everything from gentle swells to towering storm waves battering in, and a stack of fishing trawlers and oil tankers. And a choice of functioning lighthouses.
I bloody love it up here.
I hope your view isn't knackered by all the offshore wind coming your way....
"’m not on holiday you humourless pigs nipple. I’m working from a temporary home. In the sun. By the sea. Which is why I’m not sightseeing "
So @Leon imported a ton of flint into Sri Lanka and is knapping away in a bar that has run out of tonic?
He seems to have a way with words. I'm going to get him writing our new PB drama as per the plot outline above. It will be better for him. All that flint knapping can't be good for his hands.
You know those people who told other people to delete (phone) records of the parties must be shitting bricks right now as the police have become involved.
Destroying evidence is a crime.
As I’m not a lawyer would you or Cyclefree clarify if that’s relevant here? I’m clear that destroying evidence during a police investigation is a crime however does the Gray investigation have the same legal status as a police investigation?
I suppose what I’m asking is, would destroying evidence/clearing embarrassing photos, be a legal offence in the parameter’s of the Gray investigation rather than just something that can be remarked upon and if the evidence was removed before the police investigation was announced can they be in legal trouble for destroying evidence?
Does a burglar get in more legal trouble, if he burnt the swag bag he used for the burglary, if he did it straight after the burglary as opposed to after being subject to a police investigation it’s a separate crime if he sneaks out at night and destroys this evidence?
The following are examples of acts which may constitute the offence, although General Charging Practice, above in this guidance and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this guidance should be carefully considered before preferring a charge of perverting the course of justice:
persuading, or attempting to persuade, by intimidation, harm or otherwise, a witness not to give evidence, to alter his evidence or to give false evidence; interference with jurors with a view to influencing their verdict; false alibis and interference with evidence or exhibits, for example blood and DNA samples; providing false details of identity to the police or courts with a view to avoiding the consequences of a police investigation or prosecution; giving false information, or agreeing to give false information, to the police with a view to frustrating a police inquiry; for example, lying as to who was driving when a road traffic accident occurred; lending a driving licence to another to produce to the police following a notice to produce, thereby avoiding an offence of driving whilst disqualified being discovered; agreeing to give false evidence; concealing or destroying evidence concerning a police investigation to avoid arrest; assisting others to evade arrest for a significant period of time; and making a false allegation which wrongfully exposes another person to the risk of arrest, imprisonment pending trial, and possible wrongful conviction and sentence.
Could Putin save Boris? It would, surely, be impossible for Boris to stand down and for there to be a power transition while we at war. I know it happened in 1940, but that was in a very different era
The only choice for Tories is now is to VONC the Bozza
That would clear the air: to an extent. If Boris wins, so be it, he carries on (and we wait for the cops to report), if not, we’re off to the races, because he’s gone
NEW: The Met will start its own investigation into Number 10 parties from scratch with their own officers conducting any interviews. Source tells me it will take “weeks, not days.” A team of detectives from Scotland Yard’s Special Enquiries team will lead the investigation. https://twitter.com/SkyAndyHughes/status/1485953516174819328
You know those people who told other people to delete (phone) records of the parties must be shitting bricks right now as the police have become involved.
Destroying evidence is a crime.
As I’m not a lawyer would you or Cyclefree clarify if that’s relevant here? I’m clear that destroying evidence during a police investigation is a crime however does the Gray investigation have the same legal status as a police investigation?
I suppose what I’m asking is, would destroying evidence/clearing embarrassing photos, be a legal offence in the parameter’s of the Gray investigation rather than just something that can be remarked upon and if the evidence was removed before the police investigation was announced can they be in legal trouble for destroying evidence?
Does a burglar get in more legal trouble, if he burnt the swag bag he used for the burglary, if he did it straight after the burglary as opposed to after being subject to a police investigation it’s a separate crime if he sneaks out at night and destroys this evidence?
The following are examples of acts which may constitute the offence, although General Charging Practice, above in this guidance and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this guidance should be carefully considered before preferring a charge of perverting the course of justice:
persuading, or attempting to persuade, by intimidation, harm or otherwise, a witness not to give evidence, to alter his evidence or to give false evidence; interference with jurors with a view to influencing their verdict; false alibis and interference with evidence or exhibits, for example blood and DNA samples; providing false details of identity to the police or courts with a view to avoiding the consequences of a police investigation or prosecution; giving false information, or agreeing to give false information, to the police with a view to frustrating a police inquiry; for example, lying as to who was driving when a road traffic accident occurred; lending a driving licence to another to produce to the police following a notice to produce, thereby avoiding an offence of driving whilst disqualified being discovered; agreeing to give false evidence; concealing or destroying evidence concerning a police investigation to avoid arrest; assisting others to evade arrest for a significant period of time; and making a false allegation which wrongfully exposes another person to the risk of arrest, imprisonment pending trial, and possible wrongful conviction and sentence.
Labour source: “If the Tory Party want to follow the GOP route of piling their reputation on top of the bonfire of someone who behaves in that way, that’s their choice”. We’ll be getting a lot of this. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1485954309288251394
You know those people who told other people to delete (phone) records of the parties must be shitting bricks right now as the police have become involved.
Destroying evidence is a crime.
As I’m not a lawyer would you or Cyclefree clarify if that’s relevant here? I’m clear that destroying evidence during a police investigation is a crime however does the Gray investigation have the same legal status as a police investigation?
I suppose what I’m asking is, would destroying evidence/clearing embarrassing photos, be a legal offence in the parameter’s of the Gray investigation rather than just something that can be remarked upon and if the evidence was removed before the police investigation was announced can they be in legal trouble for destroying evidence?
Does a burglar get in more legal trouble, if he burnt the swag bag he used for the burglary, if he did it straight after the burglary as opposed to after being subject to a police investigation it’s a separate crime if he sneaks out at night and destroys this evidence?
The Gray investigation does not have the same status as a police one.
Remember that the police will be investigating breaches of the applicable Coronavirus Regulations. As the various reports on the CPS and Parliamentary reviews I've attached upthread show, they have often not got this right in the past when they have tried to bring prosecutions. Getting everything right this time will be critical.
@Cyclefree Can you explain why Gray can't report until after the police investigation? I assume it is to prevent prejudicing a prosecution, but I don't understand why as anything in the report can be refuted or confirmed in court and if the report had been produced last week I assume that wouldn't stop a prosecution.
It's down to the Terms of Reference I understand.
An internal disciplinary report could certainly be concluded and action taken. But the problem here is that if you uncover evidence of a potential crime and you report it to the police then the police will want their investigation to take precedence.
We had just this issue in the Adoboli case. Disciplinary proceedings against some of his colleagues could only take place once it was confirmed that the police would not be charging them. The final FCA report into the bank was not published until after the conclusion of the criminal trial etc.
When the original Case investigation was set up I suspect little thought was given to the implications hence the current mess.
Would Cummings stunt that upset you yesterday of refusing to be interviewed would be harder to pull off if the Police are now involved?
NEW: The Met will start its own investigation into Number 10 parties from scratch with their own officers conducting any interviews. Source tells me it will take “weeks, not days.” A team of detectives from Scotland Yard’s Special Enquiries team will lead the investigation. https://twitter.com/SkyAndyHughes/status/1485953516174819328
The only choice for Tories is now is to VONC the Bozza
That would clear the air: to an extent. If Boris wins, so be it, he carries on (and we wait for the cops to report), if not, we’re off to the races, because he’s gone
Comments
So he joins everyone else in an investigation.
The Russians invade, but get caught up in an investigation of their customs forms and are stuck in the waiting room at Dover for ever, since there is no one to interview them.
https://unherd.com/thepost/to-witness-the-covid-divide-walk-from-brooklyn-to-queens/
Essentially, the covid divide in America is not red vs blue but is class based: the urban wealthy are very keen on covid rules, the unwealthy are not.
Which I think is not dissimilar to life in the UK.
As a trivial example, on the Metrolink in Manchester, for example, masking seems much more common the Altrincham line than on the Manchester Airport line.
Remember that the police will be investigating breaches of the applicable Coronavirus Regulations. As the various reports on the CPS and Parliamentary reviews I've attached upthread show, they have often not got this right in the past when they have tried to bring prosecutions. Getting everything right this time will be critical.
Russian special forces spotted in Ukraine, setting up a false flag operation that they will portray as a Ukranian attack on Russia, according to UK armed forces minister James Heappey.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/01/25/russia-succeeding-sowing-panic-ukraine-says-top-security-official/
Where are the letters?
Which is why we moved up here. That my clients are in Bucharest and I'm about to open an office for them in London doesn't mean I can't live in peace in the Scottish countryside.
BTW, all the talk of the sea. Its *epic* being here. The east coast from Fraserburgh to Aberdeen is mostly long sandy dunes and beaches, or the north coast where its massive cliffs and tiny fishing villages and small towns nestled amongst them. I can run along miles of beach, walk along clifftops then along the shoreline on the way back, see everything from gentle swells to towering storm waves battering in, and a stack of fishing trawlers and oil tankers. And a choice of functioning lighthouses.
I bloody love it up here.
You may as well keep Boris if you are a Tory if those are the alternatives.
Though personally I don't mind Hunt
So effectively if people deleted “embarrassing photos” (aka evidence) ahead of the Gray report then they haven’t committed a crime however if they had deleted “evidence” (aka embarrassing photos) once under police investigation then they would have committed a crime.
In which case I presume that it’s not something now that would be considered and acted on by the Met (I know - as if they will consider or act but hypothetically).
persuading, or attempting to persuade, by intimidation, harm or otherwise, a witness not to give evidence, to alter his evidence or to give false evidence;
interference with jurors with a view to influencing their verdict;
false alibis and interference with evidence or exhibits, for example blood and DNA samples;
providing false details of identity to the police or courts with a view to avoiding the consequences of a police investigation or prosecution;
giving false information, or agreeing to give false information, to the police with a view to frustrating a police inquiry; for example, lying as to who was driving when a road traffic accident occurred;
lending a driving licence to another to produce to the police following a notice to produce, thereby avoiding an offence of driving whilst disqualified being discovered;
agreeing to give false evidence;
concealing or destroying evidence concerning a police investigation to avoid arrest;
assisting others to evade arrest for a significant period of time; and
making a false allegation which wrongfully exposes another person to the risk of arrest, imprisonment pending trial, and possible wrongful conviction and sentence.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-justice-offences-incorporating-charging-standard
It is likely that perverting the course of justice will be the appropriate charge when:
the acts wrongfully expose another person to risk of arrest or prosecution;
the obstruction of a police investigation is premeditated, prolonged or elaborate;
the acts hide from the police the commission of a serious crime;
a police investigation into serious crime has been significantly or wholly frustrated or misled;
the arrest of a wanted person for a serious crime has been prevented or substantially delayed, particularly if the wanted person presents a danger to the public or commits further crimes;
the acts completely frustrate a drink/drive investigation thereby enabling the accused to avoid a mandatory disqualification;
the acts strike at the evidence in the case. For example, influencing a vital witness to give evidence/altered evidence/false evidence, or destroying vital exhibits or frustrating a scientific examination;
the acts enable a defendant to secure bail when he would probably not have otherwise secured it;
the acts strike at the proceedings in a fundamental way. (For example, by giving a false name so as to avoid a mandatory disqualification or a 'totting' disqualification: giving false details which might significantly influence the sentence passed; giving details which may result in a caution instead of prosecution);
concerted attempts to interfere with jurors; attacks on counsel or the judge; or conduct designed to cause the proceedings to be completely abandoned);
a concerted attempt has been made to influence significant witnesses, particularly if accompanied by serious violence;
the sentencing powers of the court for an alternative offence would be inadequate.
Looks like Boris may now be safe until the local elections at least then given a police investigation will take months
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60123850
Now if only there was a PB'er with literary skills, some time on his hands and access to London's finest literary agents .......
The Tory brand will be damaged but still the cowards will stay their hands.
TL/DR would anyone really be shitting themselves for telling people to clear their phones for Gray now it’s moved to the police or are they ok by technicality?
How about the South Shetland Islands, there might be a solitary boffin there, willing to judge us all
This just gets worse and worse for you.
https://twitter.com/lesscrime/status/1485947214841225217?s=21
https://twitter.com/cjayanetti/status/1485947567338921994?s=21
I wonder what that phrase in bold refers to.
So @Leon imported a ton of flint into Sri Lanka and is knapping away in a bar that has run out of tonic?
I was laughed out of court on PB.
Not least by the pompous @IshmaelZ .
But, it looks like I will be right.
Funny old world.
Any further action can then wait until the local elections and the Met report and unless Boris, as opposed to just other No 10 staff, is found to then have broken the law or sees huge Tory losses in May he can continue after that too
C'est QED!
"Partygate report to be delayed for WEEKS because of police probe: Met chief announces criminal investigation as 'upset' Cabinet minister refuses to defend Boris's birthday party (so has Cressida Dick done PM a FAVOUR?)"
..says the Mail's banner headline.
It's as if the story and its momentum in the press has become too toxic to easily slide out of.
He'll probably throw a party to celebrate.
May called an election eleven months later, because she has a 24% poll lead.
Johnson called an election because he had 288 MPs in the House, a minority of 43 short.
And in each case, it was THEM as the 'successor' that called it.
Are the Whips threatening that Sunak would call an election? With a majority of 80 I doubt it (well, 76 at the moment).
Quite how HY thinks this is a good day for The Accused is beyond me. Only a few days ago the Gray report was being spun as likely to be redacted to death. Then demands to publish in full and we start getting leaks of just how damning the evidence submitted has been to prevent such redacting. And now plod are taking the "we had a party so what" approach of Number 10 and actually going after it.
We've gone from classic Whitehall hush job to Warts and All report but won't accuse him of anything too awful to "yeah we had a party so what it was only a cake" and plod having to investigate the stuff Downing Street can't lie about any more.
Remember that the straw that broke the dam was the birthday party. Deployed with beautiful timing by Cummings. And he has a further 24 Aces in his card deck to throw out at the most optimally painful time.
If true this could go on for a long-time but I am not qualified to say whether the officer is correct
Also what happens to multiple alleged breaches
In the aftermath of 7/11 they commissioned a report from an external consultancy. An unusually stupid external consultancy.
The report was on the world wide effect on said oil company if the HQ building was destroyed.
The fools in the external company diligently reported that it would have no noticeable effect on the operations of the oil company. Which implied that profits would go up - since without the cost of the HQ and staff.....
The report was, of course, denounced as useless. And the external company marked as "do not use".
By the directors sitting on the top floor of said building.
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-01-25/peston-why-the-met-police-probe-of-partygate-is-terrible-for-boris-johnson
TLDR: It's the Tory party that is now in the shit more than Johnson.
Yes, perhaps:
“After contracting Omicron, “we could potentially recontaminate ourselves with BA.2”, warns Olivier Véran #BA2 #Variant”
https://twitter.com/le_parisien/status/1485946479139303426?s=21
An internal disciplinary report could certainly be concluded and action taken. But the problem here is that if you uncover evidence of a potential crime and you report it to the police then the police will want their investigation to take precedence.
We had just this issue in the Adoboli case. Disciplinary proceedings against some of his colleagues could only take place once it was confirmed that the police would not be charging them. The final FCA report into the bank was not published until after the conclusion of the criminal trial etc.
When the original Case investigation was set up I suspect little thought was given to the implications hence the current mess.
Has a sitting Prime Minister ever been investigated by the police for crimes whilst in office before?
I recall Blair was questioned under caution in 2004/5. Is this the same thing?
Johnson should resign. It is completely unacceptable to be even in this position, let alone try to think you can brazen it out.
One of those very irregular verbs:
I tip off a friendly journalist
You besmirch the reputation of the government
They breach the Official Secrets Act.
Putting on one side the hypocrisy of making rules that apparently don't apply to you, the rule maker, did the rule makers not believe "the science" that they claimed necessitated those rules? Because if they had believed it, the reason for not having gatherings, not singing and filling the air with virus aerosols, and so on, was to minimise the risk of people catching COVID, right? And these were supposedly people important to the running of the country during a crisis, right? And given that we'd seen the Fat Owl of the Remove laid up in intensive care with COVID, and thus putting the country in the questionable care of one Dominic Raab, shouldn't the responsible thing be to try and minimise the risk of something similar happening again?
But hey, Downing St is quite possibly a parallel universe where none of this applies.
He has CONFESSED to breaking the law. Repeatedly.
And now even the Met who refused to get involved have no choice when the evidence is both self-evident and accompanied by a confession.
There is no moral fig leaf for you to hide behind any more. Your man is a crook. You are defending the actions of a crook. The criminal PM who thinks the law only applies to little people like you and stupid people who will defend anything he does. Like you.
Quite possible that Sunak might feel he could get say a 50 seat majority after taking over, which would be good enough for him, give him his own mandate, and reset the clock so he has five years not two.
Majority falling from 80 to 50 seats is OK for the PM. If you're in a marginal and may be one of the thirty lost on the other hand . . .
I give confidential press briefings
You leak
He's been charged under Section 2a of the Official Secrets Act
I occasionally give confidential briefings to the press
You leak
He has been prosecuted under Section 2A of the Official Secrets Act.
(I enjoyed the Mastermind episode this series where one of the contestants had Yes (Prime) Minister as his specialist subject!)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/record-level-of-flu-jab-uptake-in-those-aged-65-and-over
Of people aged 65 and over, 81.4% have already come forward for their flu vaccination this season, according to the latest data from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). This is the highest uptake in this age group on record, above the end of season uptake of 80.9% last year.
It would, surely, be impossible for Boris to stand down and for there to be a power transition while we at war. I know it happened in 1940, but that was in a very different era
That would clear the air: to an extent. If Boris wins, so be it, he carries on (and we wait for the cops to report), if not, we’re off to the races, because he’s gone
Just letting it all suppurate is calamitous
Source tells me it will take “weeks, not days.”
A team of detectives from Scotland Yard’s Special Enquiries team will lead the investigation.
https://twitter.com/SkyAndyHughes/status/1485953516174819328
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1485954309288251394
What a performance.