Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

The great cover up continues – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,703
edited February 2022 in General
The great cover up continues – politicalbetting.com

NEW: Sue Gray report now to be stripped of details of No10 parties after request by policeStatement from the Met Police: pic.twitter.com/sRs4tTNMrS

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,880
    edited January 2022
    Zing:

    The Cabinet Office and the Met are working together, and amazingly they come to a politically convenient working solution! What are the odds!

    The only way to make good-faith sense of this is that the Met appears to believe that the people under investigation won’t know they’re under investigation unless Sue Gray tells them. I think they probably know, Constable.


    https://twitter.com/xtophercook/status/1486987696392347650
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,144
    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.
  • Options
    RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,978
    Hmm.. me thinks the position can’t hold. And ultimately, longer term, this is probably worse news for Johnson.
  • Options
    #DefundTheMet
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,736
    Can lay first quarter Johnson exit at 5.0 with Smarkets. Now 6.4 with BF.
  • Options
    Oh I hope Dominic Cummings does say something on this. Not his biggest fan but he has been excellent entertainment value at the very least this last year or so.

    Also, for the first time in a while, I’m intrigued to hear what Starmer has to say about this. Hopefully, hopefully, it won’t be a bland, vanilla response. Especially given his background in the law.
  • Options
    Boris has played a blinder. His MPs were clearly getting queasy about a VONC anyway and now they can just shrug their shoulders and forget about it. Cummings has been outplayed, Rishi humbled and Sir Keir is back to square one.
  • Options

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,144
    Curse of the new thread, so FPT: On the UK's recent Covid deaths numbers, does anyone know if there is any data on the split between those tested with Delta and those with Omicron?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,426
    FPT:

    Anyone know why the quoted cost for hiring a car in the US through the Avis.co.uk site is over double the cost on the Avis.com site (with all the same details, and declaring country of residence as the UK, both quotes in £)?

    Why can't I just book using the US site, using the drop down menu to declare that I am UK resident?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,005
    Mr. Dawning, this isn't his success but MPs' failing.

    They should've axed him late last year, and the craven approach a few weeks ago was even worse.

    That presented the window of opportunity for the Dick move.
  • Options
    TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,715

    #DefundTheMet

    I'd dread to see the cost-benefit analysis of doing this.

    Huge cost saving.
    Huge benefits too.

    Probably why they don't go there.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,426

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    I doubt it, particularly if she's MI5 as widely rumoured. The security of her team is probably tight.
  • Options
    Legendary modesty klaxon.

    I tipped a 25% return in just over a fortnight that should pay out on Tuesday.

    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/01/16/will-boris-johnson-announce-his-resignation-before-the-end-of-january/
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    FPT:

    Anyone know why the quoted cost for hiring a car in the US through the Avis.co.uk site is over double the cost on the Avis.com site (with all the same details, and declaring country of residence as the UK, both quotes in £)?

    Why can't I just book using the US site, using the drop down menu to declare that I am UK resident?

    Dunno but insurance, VAT, assumed exchange rates? As well as the state of competition.
  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,880

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    A university professor of mine (and my dissertation supervisor all those years ago) was outed last year as a sex pest. He's currently the holder of a storied position at Oxford and it's the sort of story the nationals would love.

    Except they haven't published anything. His lawyers have played a blinder. Nothing in the nationals, the Oxford Mail, anything. There's some allusions on a university newspaper website but that's it.

    So "outed" how? Al-Jazeera. Big long feature investigation, accompanying podcast, all of that. They don't give a crap. They're sufficiently far from the reach of UK lawyers that they feel they can publish with impunity.

    Just saying in case there are any would-be CO leakers reading this...
  • Options
    MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,459

    Boris has played a blinder. His MPs were clearly getting queasy about a VONC anyway and now they can just shrug their shoulders and forget about it. Cummings has been outplayed, Rishi humbled and Sir Keir is back to square one.

    Has he?

    Seems to have just stalled and obfuscated. Tory MPs deference to authority has done the rest.
  • Options
    IshmaelZ said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
    Should have been clearer, the perceptions on legal issues will make publishers wary.

    I've been posting for years the rozzers, The Met in particular, are absolute twats.

    Lest we forget, just under a decade ago, the Downing Street rozzers tried to frame a serving cabinet minister. If they can do that to a serving cabinet what chance us plebs?
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,359
    edited January 2022
    IanB2 said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    I doubt it, particularly if she's MI5 as widely rumoured. The security of her team is probably tight.
    I am not expecting Cummings to leak anything he has said or given to Sue Gray

    Indeed it is reported Sue Gray demanded everything he had on this matter including photos

    To my mind the event this morning dilutes the whole debacle and maybe buys Boris some time
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,144

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    It will conveniently get leaked through a website, so in the public domain as far as the papers are concerned.

    Or posted on a Tory MPs WhatsApp group. Which is all it will need to get Boris facing a VoNC.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,020

    IanB2 said:

    FPT:

    Anyone know why the quoted cost for hiring a car in the US through the Avis.co.uk site is over double the cost on the Avis.com site (with all the same details, and declaring country of residence as the UK, both quotes in £)?

    Why can't I just book using the US site, using the drop down menu to declare that I am UK resident?

    Dunno but insurance, VAT, assumed exchange rates? As well as the state of competition.
    Nope simple market segmentation and profiteering.

    I would suggest looking at the price comparison sites and / or Expedia to see which ones (if any) provides a different booking mechanism that provide you something close to the US price.
  • Options
    I kinda agree with Stephen Bush here, heard the same about the focus groups and opinion polls.

    Good morning. The Metropolitan Police have asked Sue Gray to remove references to the eight incidents the force is investigating from her report into lockdown-breaking parties, in order to avoid prejudicing their inquiries.

    Relief for Boris Johnson? That’s the consensus among many Conservatives this morning: it means that Gray’s report will either be further delayed or published missing some of its biggest hits, and the Metropolitan Police’s investigation may not yet conclude their is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

    Just one problem, though: are the British public really waiting for Sue Gray, or indeed for the Metropolitan Police, to tell them whether or not the rules were broken? The evidence from the polls and indeed every focus group I have seen is that the public is pretty clear that rules were broken. What they are waiting for is justice, and what they expect is a cover-up.

    The Conservative party is doing what political parties in trouble often do: mistaking its own rhythms for the heartbeat of the nation. An abandoned investigation and a gutted report would, I’m convinced, combine all the political pain of the Owen Paterson vote with all the discomfort of the last few months.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,736
    edited January 2022

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    It will conveniently get leaked through a website, so in the public domain as far as the papers are concerned.

    Or posted on a Tory MPs WhatsApp group. Which is all it will need to get Boris facing a VoNC.
    You think this will draw out 54+ letters - will depend on what it says surely.
  • Options
    IshmaelZ said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
    And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences

    I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,333

    FPT

    The Met Police is a complete and utter disgrace. Never been their biggest fan, but my god somehow my opinion of them has managed to get even lower than it was before.

    Hope Sue Gray just released the report tbh and tells the Met to go and do one.

    I think she'll be happy with this. It's a more comfortable position for her now.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,807

    Curse of the new thread, so FPT: On the UK's recent Covid deaths numbers, does anyone know if there is any data on the split between those tested with Delta and those with Omicron?

    Cases are not routinely sequenced, so that data does not exist. Only a sample of PCR tests are sequenced, for epidemiological purposes.

    As Omicron is more than 90% of cases since 1st Jan then it is likely that most deaths are now Omicron.

    Certainly it is quite a lottery. I am on day 2 and not bad at all, but one of our junior doctors (fully vaxxed and boosted, 30ish and pregnant) has been off for weeks, including a brief admission for oxygen and fluids.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,926

    IshmaelZ said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
    Should have been clearer, the perceptions on legal issues will make publishers wary.

    I've been posting for years the rozzers, The Met in particular, are absolute twats.

    Lest we forget, just under a decade ago, the Downing Street rozzers tried to frame a serving cabinet minister. If they can do that to a serving cabinet what chance us plebs?
    And the Damian Green thing.

    As @Cyclefree rightly pointed out in last thread, it isn't just the Met.

    I think there has to be another agency/force involved when the integrity of politicians or the CPS/Crown office is in question.

    A separate, UK wide force might help, or at least they should have officers from other forces involved.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,373

    IshmaelZ said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
    And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences

    I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
    Some Labour tacticians think it is better to keep the Liar in Chief in office and poison the entire Tory brand I guess.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,373

    I kinda agree with Stephen Bush here, heard the same about the focus groups and opinion polls.

    Good morning. The Metropolitan Police have asked Sue Gray to remove references to the eight incidents the force is investigating from her report into lockdown-breaking parties, in order to avoid prejudicing their inquiries.

    Relief for Boris Johnson? That’s the consensus among many Conservatives this morning: it means that Gray’s report will either be further delayed or published missing some of its biggest hits, and the Metropolitan Police’s investigation may not yet conclude their is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

    Just one problem, though: are the British public really waiting for Sue Gray, or indeed for the Metropolitan Police, to tell them whether or not the rules were broken? The evidence from the polls and indeed every focus group I have seen is that the public is pretty clear that rules were broken. What they are waiting for is justice, and what they expect is a cover-up.

    The Conservative party is doing what political parties in trouble often do: mistaking its own rhythms for the heartbeat of the nation. An abandoned investigation and a gutted report would, I’m convinced, combine all the political pain of the Owen Paterson vote with all the discomfort of the last few months.

    Everyone I have spoken to in recent days is fully expecting 'them' to cover it all up as best they can. Only the little people get fined and harassed by the police etc etc. There's real anger out there, but whether it will dissipate in time is another question.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,144
    Stocky said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    It will conveniently get leaked through a website, so in the public domain as far as the papers are concerned.

    Or posted on a Tory MPs WhatsApp group. Which is all it will need to get Boris facing a VoNC.
    You think this will draw out 54+ letters - will depend on what it says surely.
    If the report shows that Boris misled Parliament, in that it was clear he knew Covid reg-breaching parties were being held, then there will be 54 letters.
  • Options

    I kinda agree with Stephen Bush here, heard the same about the focus groups and opinion polls.

    Good morning. The Metropolitan Police have asked Sue Gray to remove references to the eight incidents the force is investigating from her report into lockdown-breaking parties, in order to avoid prejudicing their inquiries.

    Relief for Boris Johnson? That’s the consensus among many Conservatives this morning: it means that Gray’s report will either be further delayed or published missing some of its biggest hits, and the Metropolitan Police’s investigation may not yet conclude their is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

    Just one problem, though: are the British public really waiting for Sue Gray, or indeed for the Metropolitan Police, to tell them whether or not the rules were broken? The evidence from the polls and indeed every focus group I have seen is that the public is pretty clear that rules were broken. What they are waiting for is justice, and what they expect is a cover-up.

    The Conservative party is doing what political parties in trouble often do: mistaking its own rhythms for the heartbeat of the nation. An abandoned investigation and a gutted report would, I’m convinced, combine all the political pain of the Owen Paterson vote with all the discomfort of the last few months.

    The problem is that the public has short memories. Boris just needs to hold on. Media narratives change. This time next month we could well be discussing the misery of Sir Keir, Partygate being but a memory.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,020

    IshmaelZ said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
    And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences

    I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
    Some Labour tacticians think it is better to keep the Liar in Chief in office and poison the entire Tory brand I guess.
    Starmer has all but called Boris a liar - and the Tory MPs still haven't removed him.

    There is very little more the Labour Party can do its up to Parliament (when Boris's half truths finally unravel into the obvious lies that they were) and Tory MPs to deal with this mess.

    And if they don't the Tory brand will continue to be slowly destroyed. But it is being destroyed anyone because at the moment it stands for nothing, no levelling up up North, no "prudent running" of the economy down South.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,926
    kinabalu said:

    FPT

    The Met Police is a complete and utter disgrace. Never been their biggest fan, but my god somehow my opinion of them has managed to get even lower than it was before.

    Hope Sue Gray just released the report tbh and tells the Met to go and do one.

    I think she'll be happy with this. It's a more comfortable position for her now.
    No, her name will be associated with cover up for the rest of her life. A career ruined.

    I'd just resign with a short explanation.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,140
    edited January 2022

    I kinda agree with Stephen Bush here, heard the same about the focus groups and opinion polls.

    Good morning. The Metropolitan Police have asked Sue Gray to remove references to the eight incidents the force is investigating from her report into lockdown-breaking parties, in order to avoid prejudicing their inquiries.

    Relief for Boris Johnson? That’s the consensus among many Conservatives this morning: it means that Gray’s report will either be further delayed or published missing some of its biggest hits, and the Metropolitan Police’s investigation may not yet conclude their is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

    Just one problem, though: are the British public really waiting for Sue Gray, or indeed for the Metropolitan Police, to tell them whether or not the rules were broken? The evidence from the polls and indeed every focus group I have seen is that the public is pretty clear that rules were broken. What they are waiting for is justice, and what they expect is a cover-up.

    The Conservative party is doing what political parties in trouble often do: mistaking its own rhythms for the heartbeat of the nation. An abandoned investigation and a gutted report would, I’m convinced, combine all the political pain of the Owen Paterson vote with all the discomfort of the last few months.

    It's strange really that the government let the expectation of imminent publication build up to the extent that it did, what with talk of the Commons being exceptionally recalled in the evening and so on.

    It would have looked a lot less strange if this had happened immediately the police investigation was announced. As it is, it looks like a last-minute emergency manoeuvre perhaps prompted by an indication that the report would be more damaging than Johnson had hoped.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,315
    edited January 2022

    IanB2 said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    I doubt it, particularly if she's MI5 as widely rumoured. The security of her team is probably tight.
    I am not expecting Cummings to leak anything he has said or given to Sue Gray

    Indeed it is reported Sue Gray demanded everything he had on this matter including photos

    To my mind the event this morning dilutes the whole debacle and maybe buys Boris some time
    You sound pleased. You should be outraged, as while all these sideshows continue, Johnson is undermining your boy Sunak.

    Had Johnson fallen on his sword as any other non-Trumpian Prime Minister would have done at the sniff of this scandal, Sunak would now have his feet under the table and be onward with the business of Government on the brink of a war.

    Instead we have this never ending cavalcade of chaos.
  • Options

    IshmaelZ said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
    And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences

    I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
    Why would Starmer want Johnson removed?
  • Options

    IshmaelZ said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
    And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences

    I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
    Labour might have to put this down as the one that got away.
  • Options
    BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,454

    I kinda agree with Stephen Bush here, heard the same about the focus groups and opinion polls.

    Good morning. The Metropolitan Police have asked Sue Gray to remove references to the eight incidents the force is investigating from her report into lockdown-breaking parties, in order to avoid prejudicing their inquiries.

    Relief for Boris Johnson? That’s the consensus among many Conservatives this morning: it means that Gray’s report will either be further delayed or published missing some of its biggest hits, and the Metropolitan Police’s investigation may not yet conclude their is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

    Just one problem, though: are the British public really waiting for Sue Gray, or indeed for the Metropolitan Police, to tell them whether or not the rules were broken? The evidence from the polls and indeed every focus group I have seen is that the public is pretty clear that rules were broken. What they are waiting for is justice, and what they expect is a cover-up.

    The Conservative party is doing what political parties in trouble often do: mistaking its own rhythms for the heartbeat of the nation. An abandoned investigation and a gutted report would, I’m convinced, combine all the political pain of the Owen Paterson vote with all the discomfort of the last few months.

    Ha, beaten to it. I was going to post Bush's comments as they are absolutely spot on.

    The public, ultimately, will have its revenge, if they think they are being taken for a ride.

    This is the key sentence: "What they are waiting for is justice, and what they expect is a cover-up."
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,582
    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
    Should have been clearer, the perceptions on legal issues will make publishers wary.

    I've been posting for years the rozzers, The Met in particular, are absolute twats.

    Lest we forget, just under a decade ago, the Downing Street rozzers tried to frame a serving cabinet minister. If they can do that to a serving cabinet what chance us plebs?
    And the Damian Green thing.

    As @Cyclefree rightly pointed out in last thread, it isn't just the Met.

    I think there has to be another agency/force involved when the integrity of politicians or the CPS/Crown office is in question.

    A separate, UK wide force might help, or at least they should have officers from other forces involved.
    The problem with all the attempts at creating independent police investigation squads (world wide) is that they end up with a "Who Guards the Guardians?" problem.

    I mentioned previously - due to actions/inaction by the police, everyone (who was paying attention) who went to Oxford University from the 90s through to the 2000s will have come away with the impression that the police are corrupt.

    Given the source of most politicians (it seems) that shouldn't cause a problem. No.
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    Labour need to go in hard on the corruption angle here. Show that after numerous failures in her role Dick was given a stay of execution by the Home Secretary and now Dick is returning the favour. Starmer needs to fight this with actual passion, not lawyerly boring technicalities.

    Starmer is compromised by his role at the CPS and is very unlikely to undermine Dick

    What was it Boris said, ' he is a lawyer not a leader'

    Seems prescient
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,205

    I kinda agree with Stephen Bush here, heard the same about the focus groups and opinion polls.

    Good morning. The Metropolitan Police have asked Sue Gray to remove references to the eight incidents the force is investigating from her report into lockdown-breaking parties, in order to avoid prejudicing their inquiries.

    Relief for Boris Johnson? That’s the consensus among many Conservatives this morning: it means that Gray’s report will either be further delayed or published missing some of its biggest hits, and the Metropolitan Police’s investigation may not yet conclude their is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

    Just one problem, though: are the British public really waiting for Sue Gray, or indeed for the Metropolitan Police, to tell them whether or not the rules were broken? The evidence from the polls and indeed every focus group I have seen is that the public is pretty clear that rules were broken. What they are waiting for is justice, and what they expect is a cover-up.

    The Conservative party is doing what political parties in trouble often do: mistaking its own rhythms for the heartbeat of the nation. An abandoned investigation and a gutted report would, I’m convinced, combine all the political pain of the Owen Paterson vote with all the discomfort of the last few months.

    Everyone I have spoken to in recent days is fully expecting 'them' to cover it all up as best they can. Only the little people get fined and harassed by the police etc etc. There's real anger out there, but whether it will dissipate in time is another question.
    Irrespective of the outcome of all of this, Labour - and the Lib Dems for that matter - should campaign for all fines issued for COVID related offences to be refunded and all such criminal records deleted.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,424
    The conduct of the police in this instance would have been completely irrelevant if Tory MPs had followed the lead of the small number who publicly declared they'd sent letters to Brady.

    Waiting for Gray's report was always an exercise in procrastination. If they'd acted on the evidence of dishonesty that was in the public domain a couple of weeks ago then the Conservatives would now be deep into a leadership election and able to start looking to the future.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,786
    EITHER The Met are conspiring to suppress investigation into and accountability of senior public servants.

    OR The Met have reasonable suspicion of serious wrongdoing that Sue Gray cannot or will not investigate to a criminal standard.

    Any other plausible explanation for the request to remove sections of the report?
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,367
    I'm not a big fan of Simon Jenkins, who takes a personal view and drives it to extremes, but he does make an awfully convincing case here:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/28/boris-johnson-fraud-minister-covid-loan-lord-agnew
  • Options

    Boris has played a blinder. His MPs were clearly getting queasy about a VONC anyway and now they can just shrug their shoulders and forget about it. Cummings has been outplayed, Rishi humbled and Sir Keir is back to square one.

    Not how I see it. I see a massively "damaged goods" PM limping on. As I said yesterday this is a win win for the opposition parties: Johnson stays that is good, Johnson resigns that would be also good. For the Conservative Party (of which I used to be an activist btw) it is a lose lose as the corollary.

    The public will be understandably angry if they think there is a cover up. Many of us were unable to see dying relatives and friends during the pandemic and stuck to the rules by and large. That the government thought it ok for their employees to have frivolous knees-ups (for that is what the public believe) that was completely against the rules that they set is an outrage.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,618
    FF43 said:

    EITHER The Met are conspiring to suppress investigation into and accountability of senior public servants.

    OR The Met have reasonable suspicion of serious wrongdoing that Sue Gray cannot or will not investigate to a criminal standard.

    Any other plausible explanation for the request to remove sections of the report?

    It's a cover-up by Cressida Dick for her bosses. This will drag on for months now and then the Met will quietly drop it with NFA.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,296
    Foxy said:


    Curse of the new thread, so FPT: On the UK's recent Covid deaths numbers, does anyone know if there is any data on the split between those tested with Delta and those with Omicron?

    Cases are not routinely sequenced, so that data does not exist. Only a sample of PCR tests are sequenced, for epidemiological purposes.

    As Omicron is more than 90% of cases since 1st Jan then it is likely that most deaths are now Omicron.

    Certainly it is quite a lottery. I am on day 2 and not bad at all, but one of our junior doctors (fully vaxxed and boosted, 30ish and pregnant) has been off for weeks, including a brief admission for oxygen and fluids.
    I'd disagree a bit about your conclusion that most deaths are likely omicron. We know omicron is a bit milder, and we know there is less tendency for lung attack. We are seeing the stark reductions in MV bed occupancy. Its entirely possible that although 90% of cases are omicron, more than 50% of deaths are from the 10% delta.

    But ultimately two things - 1) if you are dead, it doesn't matter if delta or micron killed you, you are still dead and 2) if we are not routinely sequencing these cases we won't ever know.

    Lastly - we probably should be sequencing those most ill, but maybe there are other priorities.
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,323
    edited January 2022

    IshmaelZ said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
    And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences

    I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
    Why would Starmer want Johnson removed?
    Labour would absolutely want him removed. There's a serious possibility now that Boris could stage the greatest comeback since Lazarus. That would reflect extremely badly on Sir Keir's abilities if it happened. Neil Kinnock never really recovered when he let Maggie off the hook over the Westland affair.
  • Options
    FF43 said:

    EITHER The Met are conspiring to suppress investigation into and accountability of senior public servants.

    OR The Met have reasonable suspicion of serious wrongdoing that Sue Gray cannot or will not investigate to a criminal standard.

    Any other plausible explanation for the request to remove sections of the report?

    Neither the Met not the Sue Gray mob know what they're doing?

    Never attribute to conspiracy what can easily be explained as incompetence.
  • Options

    IanB2 said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    I doubt it, particularly if she's MI5 as widely rumoured. The security of her team is probably tight.
    I am not expecting Cummings to leak anything he has said or given to Sue Gray

    Indeed it is reported Sue Gray demanded everything he had on this matter including photos

    To my mind the event this morning dilutes the whole debacle and maybe buys Boris some time
    You sound pleased. You should be outraged, as while all these sideshows continue, Johnson is undermining your boy Sunak.

    Had Johnson fallen on his sword as any other non-Trumpian Prime Minister would have done at the sniff of this scandal, Sunak would now have his feet under the table and be onward with the business of Government on the brink of a war.

    Instead we have this never ending cavalcade of chaos.
    I am most definitely not pleased

    It is the last thing I wanted but I did caution it could happen once the police are involved

    It has real dangers for Boris as if at the end of this he has been fined or has a serious charge against him, then it is all over
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,736

    I kinda agree with Stephen Bush here, heard the same about the focus groups and opinion polls.

    Good morning. The Metropolitan Police have asked Sue Gray to remove references to the eight incidents the force is investigating from her report into lockdown-breaking parties, in order to avoid prejudicing their inquiries.

    Relief for Boris Johnson? That’s the consensus among many Conservatives this morning: it means that Gray’s report will either be further delayed or published missing some of its biggest hits, and the Metropolitan Police’s investigation may not yet conclude their is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

    Just one problem, though: are the British public really waiting for Sue Gray, or indeed for the Metropolitan Police, to tell them whether or not the rules were broken? The evidence from the polls and indeed every focus group I have seen is that the public is pretty clear that rules were broken. What they are waiting for is justice, and what they expect is a cover-up.

    The Conservative party is doing what political parties in trouble often do: mistaking its own rhythms for the heartbeat of the nation. An abandoned investigation and a gutted report would, I’m convinced, combine all the political pain of the Owen Paterson vote with all the discomfort of the last few months.

    Ha, beaten to it. I was going to post Bush's comments as they are absolutely spot on.

    The public, ultimately, will have its revenge, if they think they are being taken for a ride.

    This is the key sentence: "What they are waiting for is justice, and what they expect is a cover-up."
    Yes - and I suspect that it will be left to the public to do this rather than 54 CP MPs.
  • Options

    IshmaelZ said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
    And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences

    I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
    Why would Starmer want Johnson removed?
    Labour would absolutely want him removed. There's a serious possibility now that Boris could stage the greatest comeback since Lazarus. That would reflect extremely badly on Sir Keir's abilities if it happened. Neil Kinnock never really recovered when he let Maggie off the hook over the Westland affair.
    Westland was not in the same league as this. The public already have realised that Johnson is dishonest and incompetent. There is no way back from this IMO.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,020
    edited January 2022

    I kinda agree with Stephen Bush here, heard the same about the focus groups and opinion polls.

    Good morning. The Metropolitan Police have asked Sue Gray to remove references to the eight incidents the force is investigating from her report into lockdown-breaking parties, in order to avoid prejudicing their inquiries.

    Relief for Boris Johnson? That’s the consensus among many Conservatives this morning: it means that Gray’s report will either be further delayed or published missing some of its biggest hits, and the Metropolitan Police’s investigation may not yet conclude their is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

    Just one problem, though: are the British public really waiting for Sue Gray, or indeed for the Metropolitan Police, to tell them whether or not the rules were broken? The evidence from the polls and indeed every focus group I have seen is that the public is pretty clear that rules were broken. What they are waiting for is justice, and what they expect is a cover-up.

    The Conservative party is doing what political parties in trouble often do: mistaking its own rhythms for the heartbeat of the nation. An abandoned investigation and a gutted report would, I’m convinced, combine all the political pain of the Owen Paterson vote with all the discomfort of the last few months.

    Everyone I have spoken to in recent days is fully expecting 'them' to cover it all up as best they can. Only the little people get fined and harassed by the police etc etc. There's real anger out there, but whether it will dissipate in time is another question.
    It will dissipate over time. The question is come 2023/24 when the next election arrives how much impact will it have when people are reminded of it.

    It's easy to see emotive videos attacking the Tories have a major impact on their share of the votes, it's equally possible that the videos won't work but we probably won't know until the election itself.

    However the Tory party have created a lot of easy attack vectors that really shouldn't exist - failure to level up, a rail network fit for the 21st Century for the West of the Country ignoring the east and one rule for you that we utterly ignored.

    Any of those could have a big impact when focussed on, equally they may not swing a single vote (although the latter I suspect is unlikely). Especially if it starts to look likely that Labour will be in a position to be in power.
  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,880

    Eabhal said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
    Should have been clearer, the perceptions on legal issues will make publishers wary.

    I've been posting for years the rozzers, The Met in particular, are absolute twats.

    Lest we forget, just under a decade ago, the Downing Street rozzers tried to frame a serving cabinet minister. If they can do that to a serving cabinet what chance us plebs?
    And the Damian Green thing.

    As @Cyclefree rightly pointed out in last thread, it isn't just the Met.

    I think there has to be another agency/force involved when the integrity of politicians or the CPS/Crown office is in question.

    A separate, UK wide force might help, or at least they should have officers from other forces involved.
    The problem with all the attempts at creating independent police investigation squads (world wide) is that they end up with a "Who Guards the Guardians?" problem.

    I mentioned previously - due to actions/inaction by the police, everyone (who was paying attention) who went to Oxford University from the 90s through to the 2000s will have come away with the impression that the police are corrupt.

    Given the source of most politicians (it seems) that shouldn't cause a problem. No.
    Why Oxford in particular, out of interest?
  • Options
    northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,533
    edited January 2022

    I kinda agree with Stephen Bush here, heard the same about the focus groups and opinion polls.

    Good morning. The Metropolitan Police have asked Sue Gray to remove references to the eight incidents the force is investigating from her report into lockdown-breaking parties, in order to avoid prejudicing their inquiries.

    Relief for Boris Johnson? That’s the consensus among many Conservatives this morning: it means that Gray’s report will either be further delayed or published missing some of its biggest hits, and the Metropolitan Police’s investigation may not yet conclude their is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

    Just one problem, though: are the British public really waiting for Sue Gray, or indeed for the Metropolitan Police, to tell them whether or not the rules were broken? The evidence from the polls and indeed every focus group I have seen is that the public is pretty clear that rules were broken. What they are waiting for is justice, and what they expect is a cover-up.

    The Conservative party is doing what political parties in trouble often do: mistaking its own rhythms for the heartbeat of the nation. An abandoned investigation and a gutted report would, I’m convinced, combine all the political pain of the Owen Paterson vote with all the discomfort of the last few months.

    I went to a music event last night - a talk about, then a listen to the vinyl through an absolutely banging sound system of Bruce Springsteen's Darkness on the Edge of Town, since you ask - and briefly the talk strayed onto Boris and all the shenanigans.

    Of a room of about 50 people, the bulk of people were happy to clap and cheer the speakers for making brief reference to Boris and what a, and I quote, 'bastard' he is. A few sat there stony faced and not clapping, but not many, which I thought was quite brave of them.

    So on that admittedly self-selecting audience who, to be fair, probably mostly weren't Tory voters anyway - but a fair proportion of them will have been Leave voters and they leaned towards the older age groups, I'm 43 and most people were older than me - the court of public opinion seems to have made up its mind. Can that be changed? Who knows!

    It was my first time I've been to something like that since lockdown. It was fantastic to be amongst people again!
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,582

    IshmaelZ said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
    And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences

    I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
    Why would Starmer want Johnson removed?
    Labour would absolutely want him removed. There's a serious possibility now that Boris could stage the greatest comeback since Lazarus. That would reflect extremely badly on Sir Keir's abilities if it happened. Neil Kinnock never really recovered when he let Maggie off the hook over the Westland affair.
    Westland was not in the same league as this. The public already have realised that Johnson is dishonest and incompetent. There is no way back from this IMO.
    Westland was just an argument about government policy - and an attempt by Heseltine to seize control of a political agenda.

    This is of a different order.
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited January 2022
    Remember Dom Cummings never reveals his entire hand. Maybe we'll get calls that Johnson should stand aside as PM to allow the police inquiry to progress.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,315

    MaxPB said:

    Labour need to go in hard on the corruption angle here. Show that after numerous failures in her role Dick was given a stay of execution by the Home Secretary and now Dick is returning the favour. Starmer needs to fight this with actual passion, not lawyerly boring technicalities.

    Starmer is compromised by his role at the CPS and is very unlikely to undermine Dick

    What was it Boris said, ' he is a lawyer not a leader'

    Seems prescient
    Oh no! HY has got hold of BigG's account!
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,736

    Stocky said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    It will conveniently get leaked through a website, so in the public domain as far as the papers are concerned.

    Or posted on a Tory MPs WhatsApp group. Which is all it will need to get Boris facing a VoNC.
    You think this will draw out 54+ letters - will depend on what it says surely.
    If the report shows that Boris misled Parliament, in that it was clear he knew Covid reg-breaching parties were being held, then there will be 54 letters.
    What if he knew the activities were taking place but believed them to be within reg?
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,227
    IanB2 said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    I doubt it, particularly if she's MI5 as widely rumoured. The security of her team is probably tight.
    "Rumoured"? A racing certainty I'd have thought.

    No messing this morning from Hodges:

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    39m
    Cressida Dick is one of the worst appointments to major public office in British history. And that's a very high-bar we're talking here.

    What took him so fucking long to realise?

    He could have come on here at any point over the last few years and read anyone of the - at the last count - half a dozen headers or so I've written about the utter uselessness of the Met, the police and Ms Dick to know that. Not to mention BTL comments.

    What the hell do these journalists do all day?

  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,786

    FF43 said:

    EITHER The Met are conspiring to suppress investigation into and accountability of senior public servants.

    OR The Met have reasonable suspicion of serious wrongdoing that Sue Gray cannot or will not investigate to a criminal standard.

    Any other plausible explanation for the request to remove sections of the report?

    Neither the Met not the Sue Gray mob know what they're doing?

    Never attribute to conspiracy what can easily be explained as incompetence.
    That would imply, I think, that the Met will back off and the whole Sue Gray report will be published. Let's see...
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941

    IshmaelZ said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
    And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences

    I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
    The civil service union are also rather surprised, that some of their members are named in the report, rather than just politicians.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,015

    No messing this morning from Hodges:

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    39m
    Cressida Dick is one of the worst appointments to major public office in British history. And that's a very high-bar we're talking here.

    She's certainly returning the favour for all those top politicians not calling for her head despite ample reason to.
  • Options

    IshmaelZ said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
    And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences

    I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
    Why would Starmer want Johnson removed?
    Labour would absolutely want him removed. There's a serious possibility now that Boris could stage the greatest comeback since Lazarus. That would reflect extremely badly on Sir Keir's abilities if it happened. Neil Kinnock never really recovered when he let Maggie off the hook over the Westland affair.
    Westland was not in the same league as this. The public already have realised that Johnson is dishonest and incompetent. There is no way back from this IMO.
    Westland was a Westminster bubble issue which had sod all relevance to everyday life.

    Whereas the covid restrictions dominated everyday life for over a year.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,015
    edited January 2022

    Remember Dom Cummings never reveals his entire hand. Maybe we'll get calls that Johnson should stand aside as PM to allow the police inquiry to progress.

    Sometimes people can be too 'clever' for their own good. At a certain point it's time to lay all cards on the table to actually close the game.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,001
    Said from the start we'd never see this report.
    Was widely pooh-poohed.
    This guy is Trump and Nixon with added people skills.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,807

    Foxy said:


    Curse of the new thread, so FPT: On the UK's recent Covid deaths numbers, does anyone know if there is any data on the split between those tested with Delta and those with Omicron?

    Cases are not routinely sequenced, so that data does not exist. Only a sample of PCR tests are sequenced, for epidemiological purposes.

    As Omicron is more than 90% of cases since 1st Jan then it is likely that most deaths are now Omicron.

    Certainly it is quite a lottery. I am on day 2 and not bad at all, but one of our junior doctors (fully vaxxed and boosted, 30ish and pregnant) has been off for weeks, including a brief admission for oxygen and fluids.
    I'd disagree a bit about your conclusion that most deaths are likely omicron. We know omicron is a bit milder, and we know there is less tendency for lung attack. We are seeing the stark reductions in MV bed occupancy. Its entirely possible that although 90% of cases are omicron, more than 50% of deaths are from the 10% delta.

    But ultimately two things - 1) if you are dead, it doesn't matter if delta or micron killed you, you are still dead and 2) if we are not routinely sequencing these cases we won't ever know.

    Lastly - we probably should be sequencing those most ill, but maybe there are other priorities.
    Yes, it is possible, that the small amount of Delta is disproportionate amongst the deaths, but worth noting that covid doesn't just cause lung disease, and doesn't just kill that way. Certainly there is less ventilation needed, but current mortality is not trivial.
  • Options

    Boris has played a blinder. His MPs were clearly getting queasy about a VONC anyway and now they can just shrug their shoulders and forget about it. Cummings has been outplayed, Rishi humbled and Sir Keir is back to square one.

    Not how I see it. I see a massively "damaged goods" PM limping on. As I said yesterday this is a win win for the opposition parties: Johnson stays that is good, Johnson resigns that would be also good. For the Conservative Party (of which I used to be an activist btw) it is a lose lose as the corollary.

    The public will be understandably angry if they think there is a cover up. Many of us were unable to see dying relatives and friends during the pandemic and stuck to the rules by and large. That the government thought it ok for their employees to have frivolous knees-ups (for that is what the public believe) that was completely against the rules that they set is an outrage.
    Three words: Blair, Hutton, report. I and many others were furious about the perceived cover up with that at the time, but Tone went on to have a very good general-election win. We're in a similar situation here.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941
    MaxPB said:

    Labour need to go in hard on the corruption angle here. Show that after numerous failures in her role Dick was given a stay of execution by the Home Secretary and now Dick is returning the favour. Starmer needs to fight this with actual passion, not lawyerly boring technicalities.

    Was the Mayor not also up to his neck in the decision to renew Dick’s contract?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,426
    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    It will conveniently get leaked through a website, so in the public domain as far as the papers are concerned.

    Or posted on a Tory MPs WhatsApp group. Which is all it will need to get Boris facing a VoNC.
    You think this will draw out 54+ letters - will depend on what it says surely.
    If the report shows that Boris misled Parliament, in that it was clear he knew Covid reg-breaching parties were being held, then there will be 54 letters.
    What if he knew the activities were taking place but believed them to be within reg?
    Ignorance of the law is no defence, and all that

    Especially if you wrote it (or signed it off) yourself
  • Options
    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    It will conveniently get leaked through a website, so in the public domain as far as the papers are concerned.

    Or posted on a Tory MPs WhatsApp group. Which is all it will need to get Boris facing a VoNC.
    You think this will draw out 54+ letters - will depend on what it says surely.
    If the report shows that Boris misled Parliament, in that it was clear he knew Covid reg-breaching parties were being held, then there will be 54 letters.
    What if he knew the activities were taking place but believed them to be within reg?
    The end of the police process will define Boris future

    Fined or charged, it is over - no action on Boris, he stays
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,582

    FF43 said:

    EITHER The Met are conspiring to suppress investigation into and accountability of senior public servants.

    OR The Met have reasonable suspicion of serious wrongdoing that Sue Gray cannot or will not investigate to a criminal standard.

    Any other plausible explanation for the request to remove sections of the report?

    Neither the Met not the Sue Gray mob know what they're doing?

    Never attribute to conspiracy what can easily be explained as incompetence.
    If there were evidence of law breaking, what could Sue Gray et al do?

    1) Not tell the police, and publish a report accusing people (in effect) of law breaking
    2) Tell the police.

    I'm not sure what ethical rules etc she is working under, but there might well be a requirement to report potential offences to the police. Certainly, publishing the full details of such potential offences would make them unprocurable - I think (calling PB lawyers)

    Once reported to the police, the police would be obliged (I think, again PB lawyers) to ask that the details of such offences be redacted while they investigate and until any charges go through.

    In other words - did Sue Gray and the police have any other options?

    The only way that I could see full publication taking place immediately, would be if the police (and prosecutors) decided that all offences involved would be NFA'd. Which would be a blanket pardon/cover up.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,582
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:


    Curse of the new thread, so FPT: On the UK's recent Covid deaths numbers, does anyone know if there is any data on the split between those tested with Delta and those with Omicron?

    Cases are not routinely sequenced, so that data does not exist. Only a sample of PCR tests are sequenced, for epidemiological purposes.

    As Omicron is more than 90% of cases since 1st Jan then it is likely that most deaths are now Omicron.

    Certainly it is quite a lottery. I am on day 2 and not bad at all, but one of our junior doctors (fully vaxxed and boosted, 30ish and pregnant) has been off for weeks, including a brief admission for oxygen and fluids.
    I'd disagree a bit about your conclusion that most deaths are likely omicron. We know omicron is a bit milder, and we know there is less tendency for lung attack. We are seeing the stark reductions in MV bed occupancy. Its entirely possible that although 90% of cases are omicron, more than 50% of deaths are from the 10% delta.

    But ultimately two things - 1) if you are dead, it doesn't matter if delta or micron killed you, you are still dead and 2) if we are not routinely sequencing these cases we won't ever know.

    Lastly - we probably should be sequencing those most ill, but maybe there are other priorities.
    Yes, it is possible, that the small amount of Delta is disproportionate amongst the deaths, but worth noting that covid doesn't just cause lung disease, and doesn't just kill that way. Certainly there is less ventilation needed, but current mortality is not trivial.
    Nasty to ask, but is there any literature on what Delta and Omicron actually do, compared to each other?
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,296
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:


    Curse of the new thread, so FPT: On the UK's recent Covid deaths numbers, does anyone know if there is any data on the split between those tested with Delta and those with Omicron?

    Cases are not routinely sequenced, so that data does not exist. Only a sample of PCR tests are sequenced, for epidemiological purposes.

    As Omicron is more than 90% of cases since 1st Jan then it is likely that most deaths are now Omicron.

    Certainly it is quite a lottery. I am on day 2 and not bad at all, but one of our junior doctors (fully vaxxed and boosted, 30ish and pregnant) has been off for weeks, including a brief admission for oxygen and fluids.
    I'd disagree a bit about your conclusion that most deaths are likely omicron. We know omicron is a bit milder, and we know there is less tendency for lung attack. We are seeing the stark reductions in MV bed occupancy. Its entirely possible that although 90% of cases are omicron, more than 50% of deaths are from the 10% delta.

    But ultimately two things - 1) if you are dead, it doesn't matter if delta or micron killed you, you are still dead and 2) if we are not routinely sequencing these cases we won't ever know.

    Lastly - we probably should be sequencing those most ill, but maybe there are other priorities.
    Yes, it is possible, that the small amount of Delta is disproportionate amongst the deaths, but worth noting that covid doesn't just cause lung disease, and doesn't just kill that way. Certainly there is less ventilation needed, but current mortality is not trivial.
    Yes you are right, and I guess elderly patients don't tend to get ventilated, so many of the current deaths (as throughout the pandemic) are in the 80+ categories.

    BTW did I miss you testing positive?
  • Options

    FF43 said:

    EITHER The Met are conspiring to suppress investigation into and accountability of senior public servants.

    OR The Met have reasonable suspicion of serious wrongdoing that Sue Gray cannot or will not investigate to a criminal standard.

    Any other plausible explanation for the request to remove sections of the report?

    Neither the Met not the Sue Gray mob know what they're doing?

    Never attribute to conspiracy what can easily be explained as incompetence.
    If there were evidence of law breaking, what could Sue Gray et al do?

    1) Not tell the police, and publish a report accusing people (in effect) of law breaking
    2) Tell the police.

    I'm not sure what ethical rules etc she is working under, but there might well be a requirement to report potential offences to the police. Certainly, publishing the full details of such potential offences would make them unprocurable - I think (calling PB lawyers)

    Once reported to the police, the police would be obliged (I think, again PB lawyers) to ask that the details of such offences be redacted while they investigate and until any charges go through.

    In other words - did Sue Gray and the police have any other options?

    The only way that I could see full publication taking place immediately, would be if the police (and prosecutors) decided that all offences involved would be NFA'd. Which would be a blanket pardon/cover up.
    It's possible the Met may want to have a word with Mr Cummings, and it's possible that, unlike Ms Gray, they may not be satisfied by written answers to written questions. Withholding evidence of wrongdoing, and using it to blackmail the alleged perpetrator, is exactly the sort of thing that annoys them.
  • Options

    FF43 said:

    EITHER The Met are conspiring to suppress investigation into and accountability of senior public servants.

    OR The Met have reasonable suspicion of serious wrongdoing that Sue Gray cannot or will not investigate to a criminal standard.

    Any other plausible explanation for the request to remove sections of the report?

    Neither the Met not the Sue Gray mob know what they're doing?

    Never attribute to conspiracy what can easily be explained as incompetence.
    There's also the possibility that its incompetent conspiracy.
  • Options
    The sexiest man alive and world's best goalkeeper Alisson Becker had a quiet night last night playing for Brazil.

    He was sent off twice but VAR correctly saved him.

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/jan/28/alisson-sent-off-twice-in-brazil-draw-with-ecuador-and-saved-both-times-by-var
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,015
    IanB2 said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    It will conveniently get leaked through a website, so in the public domain as far as the papers are concerned.

    Or posted on a Tory MPs WhatsApp group. Which is all it will need to get Boris facing a VoNC.
    You think this will draw out 54+ letters - will depend on what it says surely.
    If the report shows that Boris misled Parliament, in that it was clear he knew Covid reg-breaching parties were being held, then there will be 54 letters.
    What if he knew the activities were taking place but believed them to be within reg?
    Ignorance of the law is no defence, and all that

    Especially if you wrote it (or signed it off) yourself
    Indeed. Though if a crime requires intent presumably ignorance could in fact be an excuse despite that saying? Though for things obviously wrong like murder, or technical matters like Covid breaches, it doesn't seem like knowing it was a crime or not would matter.
  • Options

    FF43 said:

    EITHER The Met are conspiring to suppress investigation into and accountability of senior public servants.

    OR The Met have reasonable suspicion of serious wrongdoing that Sue Gray cannot or will not investigate to a criminal standard.

    Any other plausible explanation for the request to remove sections of the report?

    Neither the Met not the Sue Gray mob know what they're doing?

    Never attribute to conspiracy what can easily be explained as incompetence.
    If there were evidence of law breaking, what could Sue Gray et al do?

    1) Not tell the police, and publish a report accusing people (in effect) of law breaking
    2) Tell the police.

    I'm not sure what ethical rules etc she is working under, but there might well be a requirement to report potential offences to the police. Certainly, publishing the full details of such potential offences would make them unprocurable - I think (calling PB lawyers)

    Once reported to the police, the police would be obliged (I think, again PB lawyers) to ask that the details of such offences be redacted while they investigate and until any charges go through.

    In other words - did Sue Gray and the police have any other options?

    The only way that I could see full publication taking place immediately, would be if the police (and prosecutors) decided that all offences involved would be NFA'd. Which would be a blanket pardon/cover up.
    Hang on, if a gang of bank robbers rob a bank, then get one of their friends to investigate them and publish a report stating that they robbed a bank, are you saying that the police and courts could not prosecute them?
  • Options

    Boris has played a blinder. His MPs were clearly getting queasy about a VONC anyway and now they can just shrug their shoulders and forget about it. Cummings has been outplayed, Rishi humbled and Sir Keir is back to square one.

    Not how I see it. I see a massively "damaged goods" PM limping on. As I said yesterday this is a win win for the opposition parties: Johnson stays that is good, Johnson resigns that would be also good. For the Conservative Party (of which I used to be an activist btw) it is a lose lose as the corollary.

    The public will be understandably angry if they think there is a cover up. Many of us were unable to see dying relatives and friends during the pandemic and stuck to the rules by and large. That the government thought it ok for their employees to have frivolous knees-ups (for that is what the public believe) that was completely against the rules that they set is an outrage.
    Three words: Blair, Hutton, report. I and many others were furious about the perceived cover up with that at the time, but Tone went on to have a very good general-election win. We're in a similar situation here.
    Much as I disliked Blair, and as a Tory activist did what I could, the reality was that Blair was actually competent in other areas. Hutton would have damaged him, but not terminally. This is a different league. Sure, it is possible the opposition parties will let Johnson off the hook, but it is unlikely. Johnson is fundamentally what the public now realise he is: incompetent and dishonest. He is trashing the Tory brand at the same time as his own. I still give him until June.
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    Labour need to go in hard on the corruption angle here. Show that after numerous failures in her role Dick was given a stay of execution by the Home Secretary and now Dick is returning the favour. Starmer needs to fight this with actual passion, not lawyerly boring technicalities.

    Starmer is not going to accuse the Met Commissioner of corruption. He publicly stood by her after one of her previous cock ups last year. Big mistake in my view.
    Starmer is from the same sleazy, incompetent establishment as Dick.

    They always support each other.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,015
    kinabalu said:

    FPT

    The Met Police is a complete and utter disgrace. Never been their biggest fan, but my god somehow my opinion of them has managed to get even lower than it was before.

    Hope Sue Gray just released the report tbh and tells the Met to go and do one.

    I think she'll be happy with this. It's a more comfortable position for her now.
    Civil servants dont want limelight or it all to hang on them.

    Similar reason to why Dom made for a terrible adviser, as he clearly loves attention.
  • Options


    FF43 said:

    EITHER The Met are conspiring to suppress investigation into and accountability of senior public servants.

    OR The Met have reasonable suspicion of serious wrongdoing that Sue Gray cannot or will not investigate to a criminal standard.

    Any other plausible explanation for the request to remove sections of the report?

    Neither the Met not the Sue Gray mob know what they're doing?

    Never attribute to conspiracy what can easily be explained as incompetence.
    There's also the possibility that its incompetent conspiracy.
    Is it unconscious incompetence, or conscious incompetence?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,315
    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    Labour need to go in hard on the corruption angle here. Show that after numerous failures in her role Dick was given a stay of execution by the Home Secretary and now Dick is returning the favour. Starmer needs to fight this with actual passion, not lawyerly boring technicalities.

    Starmer is not going to accuse the Met Commissioner of corruption. He publicly stood by her after one of her previous cock ups last year. Big mistake in my view.
    How did the tactical commander who gave the erroneous order to blow away a Brazilian electrician going about his business on a crowded tube train, avoid having to clear her desk the following day?
  • Options

    FF43 said:

    EITHER The Met are conspiring to suppress investigation into and accountability of senior public servants.

    OR The Met have reasonable suspicion of serious wrongdoing that Sue Gray cannot or will not investigate to a criminal standard.

    Any other plausible explanation for the request to remove sections of the report?

    Neither the Met not the Sue Gray mob know what they're doing?

    Never attribute to conspiracy what can easily be explained as incompetence.
    If there were evidence of law breaking, what could Sue Gray et al do?

    1) Not tell the police, and publish a report accusing people (in effect) of law breaking
    2) Tell the police.

    I'm not sure what ethical rules etc she is working under, but there might well be a requirement to report potential offences to the police. Certainly, publishing the full details of such potential offences would make them unprocurable - I think (calling PB lawyers)

    Once reported to the police, the police would be obliged (I think, again PB lawyers) to ask that the details of such offences be redacted while they investigate and until any charges go through.

    In other words - did Sue Gray and the police have any other options?

    The only way that I could see full publication taking place immediately, would be if the police (and prosecutors) decided that all offences involved would be NFA'd. Which would be a blanket pardon/cover up.
    It's possible the Met may want to have a word with Mr Cummings, and it's possible that, unlike Ms Gray, they may not be satisfied by written answers to written questions. Withholding evidence of wrongdoing, and using it to blackmail the alleged perpetrator, is exactly the sort of thing that annoys them.
    I expect they will be interviewing him, not least as he was photographed on the patio, and his threats to tell more may just be his undoing
  • Options

    IshmaelZ said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
    And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences

    I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
    Why would Starmer want Johnson removed?
    Labour would absolutely want him removed. There's a serious possibility now that Boris could stage the greatest comeback since Lazarus. That would reflect extremely badly on Sir Keir's abilities if it happened. Neil Kinnock never really recovered when he let Maggie off the hook over the Westland affair.
    Westland was not in the same league as this. The public already have realised that Johnson is dishonest and incompetent. There is no way back from this IMO.
    Westland was just an argument about government policy - and an attempt by Heseltine to seize control of a political agenda.

    This is of a different order.
    True. But the point is that Kinnock was perceived as having at his disposal all the political ammunition needed to destroy Thatcher. When she survived the thought was 'if he can't succeed here what can he succeed at?' Sir Keir will be kicking himself if Boris manages to wriggle out of this. It's the one thing he should have been able to do.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,426

    FF43 said:

    EITHER The Met are conspiring to suppress investigation into and accountability of senior public servants.

    OR The Met have reasonable suspicion of serious wrongdoing that Sue Gray cannot or will not investigate to a criminal standard.

    Any other plausible explanation for the request to remove sections of the report?

    Neither the Met not the Sue Gray mob know what they're doing?

    Never attribute to conspiracy what can easily be explained as incompetence.
    If there were evidence of law breaking, what could Sue Gray et al do?

    1) Not tell the police, and publish a report accusing people (in effect) of law breaking
    2) Tell the police.

    I'm not sure what ethical rules etc she is working under, but there might well be a requirement to report potential offences to the police. Certainly, publishing the full details of such potential offences would make them unprocurable - I think (calling PB lawyers)

    Once reported to the police, the police would be obliged (I think, again PB lawyers) to ask that the details of such offences be redacted while they investigate and until any charges go through.

    In other words - did Sue Gray and the police have any other options?

    The only way that I could see full publication taking place immediately, would be if the police (and prosecutors) decided that all offences involved would be NFA'd. Which would be a blanket pardon/cover up.
    Yes - the fact that Gray, at first, tried to ensure that she could still publish her report, and that this got quickly to the media, is a hint that she wasn't part of some sort of plot - despite it undeniably being convenient for her to have the police delay and overshadow her work.

    Unless, of course, the secret service has decided that our country isn't safe in the hands of the clown and the real plot is to get rid of him. That would make a good storyline for Spooks.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,582

    FF43 said:

    EITHER The Met are conspiring to suppress investigation into and accountability of senior public servants.

    OR The Met have reasonable suspicion of serious wrongdoing that Sue Gray cannot or will not investigate to a criminal standard.

    Any other plausible explanation for the request to remove sections of the report?

    Neither the Met not the Sue Gray mob know what they're doing?

    Never attribute to conspiracy what can easily be explained as incompetence.
    If there were evidence of law breaking, what could Sue Gray et al do?

    1) Not tell the police, and publish a report accusing people (in effect) of law breaking
    2) Tell the police.

    I'm not sure what ethical rules etc she is working under, but there might well be a requirement to report potential offences to the police. Certainly, publishing the full details of such potential offences would make them unprocurable - I think (calling PB lawyers)

    Once reported to the police, the police would be obliged (I think, again PB lawyers) to ask that the details of such offences be redacted while they investigate and until any charges go through.

    In other words - did Sue Gray and the police have any other options?

    The only way that I could see full publication taking place immediately, would be if the police (and prosecutors) decided that all offences involved would be NFA'd. Which would be a blanket pardon/cover up.
    Hang on, if a gang of bank robbers rob a bank, then get one of their friends to investigate them and publish a report stating that they robbed a bank, are you saying that the police and courts could not prosecute them?
    No.

    It is my understanding that the nature, "officialness" and the distribution of such a report is what is considered.

    So an official government report, which will be splashed in every newspaper and every news channel in the UK, would be seen as prejudicial.

    Some stuff on a barely noticed website, by some random people, wouldn't have that effect.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.

    But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
    Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then

    I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
    And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences

    I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
    Why would Starmer want Johnson removed?
    Labour would absolutely want him removed. There's a serious possibility now that Boris could stage the greatest comeback since Lazarus. That would reflect extremely badly on Sir Keir's abilities if it happened. Neil Kinnock never really recovered when he let Maggie off the hook over the Westland affair.
    Westland was not in the same league as this. The public already have realised that Johnson is dishonest and incompetent. There is no way back from this IMO.
    Westland was just an argument about government policy - and an attempt by Heseltine to seize control of a political agenda.

    This is of a different order.
    True. But the point is that Kinnock was perceived as having at his disposal all the political ammunition needed to destroy Thatcher. When she survived the thought was 'if he can't succeed here what can he succeed at?' Sir Keir will be kicking himself if Boris manages to wriggle out of this. It's the one thing he should have been able to do.
    True. This is meant to be what hewas born to do
  • Options
    BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,454
    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    Labour need to go in hard on the corruption angle here. Show that after numerous failures in her role Dick was given a stay of execution by the Home Secretary and now Dick is returning the favour. Starmer needs to fight this with actual passion, not lawyerly boring technicalities.

    Starmer is not going to accuse the Met Commissioner of corruption. He publicly stood by her after one of her previous cock ups last year. Big mistake in my view.
    It would be a big mistake for Starmer to go after the Met. What we would have then? Labour vs the Police. Would play into Boris's hands. He needs to take care about messaging, and I suspect he will. He's not daft.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,227

    FF43 said:

    EITHER The Met are conspiring to suppress investigation into and accountability of senior public servants.

    OR The Met have reasonable suspicion of serious wrongdoing that Sue Gray cannot or will not investigate to a criminal standard.

    Any other plausible explanation for the request to remove sections of the report?

    Neither the Met not the Sue Gray mob know what they're doing?

    Never attribute to conspiracy what can easily be explained as incompetence.
    If there were evidence of law breaking, what could Sue Gray et al do?

    1) Not tell the police, and publish a report accusing people (in effect) of law breaking
    2) Tell the police.

    I'm not sure what ethical rules etc she is working under, but there might well be a requirement to report potential offences to the police. Certainly, publishing the full details of such potential offences would make them unprocurable - I think (calling PB lawyers)

    Once reported to the police, the police would be obliged (I think, again PB lawyers) to ask that the details of such offences be redacted while they investigate and until any charges go through.

    In other words - did Sue Gray and the police have any other options?

    The only way that I could see full publication taking place immediately, would be if the police (and prosecutors) decided that all offences involved would be NFA'd. Which would be a blanket pardon/cover up.
    I know, I'm repeating myself. But as I said a few days ago.....

    I remember sitting in Bishopsgate Police station with the DCI and his team on the Adoboli case. There were lots of investigations going on - by the FCA, the SEC, the Swiss regulator and others, internal investigation, ones by auditors etc. And the DCI just sat there and said that he had told all of these to "go and do one" because his criminal investigation took precedence. Nothing else mattered until this one was done and dusted. And nothing else would be published until it was. And they weren't.

    Also as plenty of us have said, Tory MPs have long had all the evidence they need to take action against Boris. Waiting for Sue Gray was rationalising their own fear of taking action. Serves them right.

    A bloody great shame for the rest of us that we have to put up with this shambles of a government.

    Still, we get to hear our PM use phrases like "total rhubarb" when talking about saving pets.

    So there is that, I suppose.

  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,426

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    Labour need to go in hard on the corruption angle here. Show that after numerous failures in her role Dick was given a stay of execution by the Home Secretary and now Dick is returning the favour. Starmer needs to fight this with actual passion, not lawyerly boring technicalities.

    Starmer is not going to accuse the Met Commissioner of corruption. He publicly stood by her after one of her previous cock ups last year. Big mistake in my view.
    Starmer is from the same sleazy, incompetent establishment as Dick.

    They always support each other.
    On that basis there's no escape. Some people thought Brexit might be an escape from "the establishment", and look what we got.
This discussion has been closed.