[Oldmanmatt]

Frost the brexit negotiator has resigned apparently.

What a fucking coward. He was brought into government for one job. So all this talk about him not agreeing with Covid restrictions or higher taxes is just nonsense. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells can see it’s because he’s failed to square the circle caused by his own shitty deal.

One by one the central protagonists will follow him off the ship and leave other people to try and pick up the pieces.

Truss!

FFS.
.
.
.
Puts us in a bit of a bind…

[TobyD]

Frost the brexit negotiator has resigned apparently.

What a fucking coward. He was brought into government for one job. So all this talk about him not agreeing with Covid restrictions or higher taxes is just nonsense. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells can see it’s because he’s failed to square the circle caused by his own shitty deal.

One by one the central protagonists will follow him off the ship and leave other people to try and pick up the pieces.

Truss!

FFS.
.
.
.
Puts us in a bit of a bind…

She's got a ridiculously wide brief,  Brexit,  foreign office,  equalities..... but is actually on full time angling for the PM's job.

[James Malloch]

What do you think the excuse will be this time?

Oliver Dowden 55 minutes before Downing Street party:

Step 1 – as the PM announced this week:

- Those who cannot work from home should now speak to their employer about going back to work.

- You can now spend time outdoors and exercise as often as you like.

- You can meet one person outside of your household in an outdoor, public place provided that you stay 2 metres apart.

I think they will go for:

1) Guidance says public place, and Downing Street is not Public

2) Therefore no rules were officially broken. Also Johnson was just in his own garden which is allowed - if anything the others are to blame.

3) However we regret this happened and apologise for how this looks to members of the public

4) Some statement about vaccinations

[battery]

What do you think the excuse will be this time?

Oliver Dowden 55 minutes before Downing Street party:

Step 1 – as the PM announced this week:

- Those who cannot work from home should now speak to their employer about going back to work.

- You can now spend time outdoors and exercise as often as you like.

- You can meet one person outside of your household in an outdoor, public place provided that you stay 2 metres apart.

I think they will go for:

1) Guidance says public place, and Downing Street is not Public

2) Therefore no rules were officially broken. Also Johnson was just in his own garden which is allowed - if anything the others are to blame.

3) However we regret this happened and apologise for how this looks to members of the public

4) Some statement about vaccinations

5) We are waiting for the official report/inquiry by which time everyone will have forgotten about it and my reputation as the saviour of Britain from those evil foreigners and the plague will remain in tact.

[TobyD]

If Johnson is asked in PMQs tomorrow, he will of course not answer the question at all, because he never does.

There will be some bullshit about private locked premises and work colleagues I should think.
However, I was listening to a bit of 5 live and LBC this morning and a lot of people sounded pretty angry about it.

[TobyD]

From Marina Hyde in the Guardian, a predictable yet amusing response: I’m afraid the only sane response to this is: what?! What are you even talking about? Did you or didn’t you go to a big party in your garden, you smirking fibreglass toby jug? Or do you also have to wait for some veteran civil servant to tell you whether or not you put your pants on the right way round this morning? Honestly mate, just MAN UP. Johnson’s turn as “prime minister” seems to have moved past the sarcastic air quotes phase. This feels a lot like government by the crazy-face emoji, tongue lolling out and one eye boggling bigger than the other. Any Tory MP who voted for this galaxy-class liar to become leader should remember they were wrong on probably the biggest call of their career, and consider resigning before the next election to go and work for a charity/arms dealer.

Speaking of manning up, I wonder if the organisers managed to find any ladies to attend this 20 May party? I mean, I’m not saying that people who do well under Johnson are mainly guys who spent a significant part of the past decade masturbating to Game of Thrones. No wait – I am. But one of my favourite things about the one Downing Street cheese-and-wine “work meeting” that we have an actual photo of is that the only two women I can see in it are Carrie Johnson and Gina Coladangelo. Remember, girls: if you want to work at the heart of government, you need to be either a man, or in a relationship with a man who does. If you can dream it, you can do it!

Back to the BYOB party, though – sorry, I know you need flashcards to keep your rule-breaking Downing Street pandemic bashes in order – which was organised by Johnson’s principal private secretary, Martin Reynolds. Apparently Reynolds now wants to get back to the diplomatic service, and perhaps the Middle East, and there is some talk about him being made an ambassador. You know, like when you or I break the rules and mess up spectacularly at work, and they make us an ambassador.

[spidermonkey09]

Oh look, the Metropolitan Police are being shifty again. Guess who its going to benefit 

[Will Hunt]

Oh look, the Metropolitan Police are being shifty again. Guess who its going to benefit 

I'm as frustrated as the next person, but isn't it standard procedure for information to be withheld while a police investigation is underway, so as not to prejudice the results of that investigation?

[spidermonkey09]

Oh look, the Metropolitan Police are being shifty again. Guess who its going to benefit 

I'm as frustrated as the next person, but isn't it standard procedure for information to be withheld while a police investigation is underway, so as not to prejudice the results of that investigation?

Its just profoundly incompetent. Their position has changed like the wind. (below lifted from a journalists twitter).

The Met’s evolving position:

- we don’t investigate Covid crimes retrospectively

- there is insufficient evidence

- we’ll see what comes of Gray

- Gray found evidence so we’ll investigate

- we don’t want Gray to publish her evidence as it’ll prejudice our investigation.

more than a few legal eagles don't seem to see the issue of publishing the report. I'll try and track some down.

[seankenny]

Can a magistrates’ court case be prejudiced in the same way as a crown court case with a jury? If not, then prejudice ruling looks a little suspect.

Also say if some CCTV footage of a crime is released showing the criminal clearly committing the act but his identity is unknown to the police, but he is identifiable to those who know him. How is this different to releasing an image of Johnson at a party, except the circle of people who know him is somewhat wider? I mean, sometimes evidence is widespread in the public domain - the material only becomes prejudicial after an arrest is made, iirc.

Happy to be wrong on this because right now it looks awfully like the police working to political ends which really isn’t supposed to happen.

[Paul B]

more than a few legal eagles don't seem to see the issue of publishing the report. I'll try and track some down.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/28/why-on-earth-would-the-metropolitan-police-ask-sue-gray-to-redact-key-parts-of-her-independent-report/

Or for the TL;DR:

Contrast to the position where the suspect knows in advance that X has potentially incriminating messages, and has the opportunity to either invent a pre-emptive lie (“I lent my phone to somebody else that day”) or to speak to X to ensure that those messages are accidentally irrecoverably deleted.

In other words, the absolute last thing you would want, as an investigator, is for a group of powerful, organised suspects to be presented with a summary of everything the police know, and to be afforded an opportunity, before being interviewed, to concoct a false exculpatory account, or to destroy evidence that they knew had not yet come to light, or to have a gentle word with witnesses who had not yet spoken to the investigators.

Sue Gray’s report, if it offers summaries of what witnesses or suspects have said about events currently being investigated by the Met, would potentially be precisely such a document. It would offer a cheat sheet for any guilty party (no pun intended) wanting to steal a march on the police investigation.

This may be why the Met are so anxious that the report omits details relating to the parties currently under investigation.

[spidermonkey09]

I was just about to post that in the interest of balance! Still think the timing is distinctly dodgy and indicative of a force that is no longer fit for purpose, but then I've thought that for years, so plus ca change. As per the below, we'll have to wait and see what happens. My bet is their 'investigation' will find nothing beyond fixed penalty level and even that might not get pursued.

But a political ‘stitch-up’? It’s too early for such accusations to be sensibly levelled. As things stand, there are potentially valid reasons for the Met’s stance. The provable charge against the Met is unforgivable incompetence at the highest level. We’ll have to await the outcome of their investigation, details of precisely what Met officers knew at the time about the alleged offending, and the transparency of the Met’s ultimate decision-making, before deciding whether Hanlon’s Razor needs snapping in half.

[mrjonathanr]

Its just profoundly incompetent. Their position has changed like the wind. (below lifted from a journalists twitter).

The Met’s evolving position:

- we don’t investigate Covid crimes retrospectively

It’s an odd word to use, ‘retrospectively’.

I have always believed the police investigate crimes which had already taken place. Does this mean they only investigate crimes under COVID legislation that haven’t happened yet?

[TobyD]

Its just profoundly incompetent. Their position has changed like the wind. (below lifted from a journalists twitter).

The Met’s evolving position:

- we don’t investigate Covid crimes retrospectively

It’s an odd word to use, ‘retrospectively’.

I have always believed the police investigate crimes which had already taken place. Does this mean they only investigate crimes under COVID legislation that haven’t happened yet?

A state investigating thought crimes? I'm sure I might have read that somewhere before...

Whatever any reports or investigation say they won't sack Johnson, the only people who will do that are Conservative MPs, or the electorate at the next election.

Unless there's actually a CCTV of Johnson snorting coke off a portrait of the Queen in number 10 he's clinging on as long as he can get away with it.

[ali k]

It’s an odd word to use, ‘retrospectively’.

I have always believed the police investigate crimes which had already taken place. Does this mean they only investigate crimes under COVID legislation that haven’t happened yet?

The ‘policy’ they were working to (which seems to have only ever existed in the brain of Cressida Dick) was to act on Covid breaches which were in progress and where the police attended. Except the times when they acted retrospectively. But this only when there was evidence freely available. Except the time when evidence was freely available but they decided not to act anyway. Does that make more sense?

So with this new intervention to stop Gray publishing the bits they are investigating it seems either the Met are taking it very seriously and doing things by the book, or there’s a blatant cover up happening. You would hope given it’s the anti political corruption unit doing the investigation that it’s the former but it’s a sad indictment of both the Met and govt that the latter seems the most likely.

[mrjonathanr]

That the question is seen as reasonable is a pretty sad indictment of their reputation, tbh.

Arise, Dame Dick!

[DAVETHOMAS90]

The position regarding not investigating "long after the event" is consistent with the policy of intervening when there are current breaches in Covid regs taking place - the regulations are there to assist in reducing the risk of transfer/infection.

However, it appears that according to the Met, three criteria for investigating the most serious and flagrant disregard for the Covid regulations have been met - referring to information forwarded from the Gray report.

From Sky.

"They are:

• evidence that those involved knew or ought to have known they were committing an offence

• that by not investigating it would significantly undermine the legitimacy of the law

• that there is little ambiguity over the absence of any reasonable defence"

This is what we all know already of course 

What saddens me more, is that so few people who do know, have been keeping quiet.

[sdm]

Can a magistrates’ court case be prejudiced in the same way as a crown court case with a jury? If not, then prejudice ruling looks a little suspect.

I think the wording here is key:

"to avoid any prejudice to our investigation.”

It isn't about prejudice of a potential court case, it is prejudice of the investigation.

My understanding is that it is impossible to prejudice a court case at this early stage. Happy to be corrected by someone who knows what they're talking about though.

But the investigation could very much be prejudice by laying out all of the evidence for any potential suspects prior to them being interviewed. Allowing them to get their stories in order to defend against the evidence that has been uncovered rather than trying to guess which evidence may have been uncovered and therefore allowing them to avoid self-incrimination.

The word prejudice seems a very poor choice of words in this context. I'm not sure whether that is down to incompetence or deliberate deception. Which it is will become clear once the investigation is complete.

[TobyD]

Can a magistrates’ court case be prejudiced in the same way as a crown court case with a jury? If not, then prejudice ruling looks a little suspect.

I think the wording here is key:

"to avoid any prejudice to our investigation.”

It isn't about prejudice of a potential court case, it is prejudice of the investigation.

My understanding is that it is impossible to prejudice a court case at this early stage. Happy to be corrected by someone who knows what they're talking about though.

But the investigation could very much be prejudice by laying out all of the evidence for any potential suspects prior to them being interviewed. Allowing them to get their stories in order to defend against the evidence that has been uncovered rather than trying to guess which evidence may have been uncovered and therefore allowing them to avoid self-incrimination.

The word prejudice seems a very poor choice of words in this context. I'm not sure whether that is down to incompetence or deliberate deception. Which it is will become clear once the investigation is complete.

This is pretty much what a lawyer they just interviewed on the today programme said. 
The really awful thing isn't intrinsically what was going on,  it's that the government was (is) so chaotic and unprofessional that they have lost billions of pounds in covid loans,  leading to the resignation of Lord Agnew this week. 

[dr_botnik]

So with this new intervention to stop Gray publishing the bits they are investigating it seems either the Met are taking it very seriously and doing things by the book, or there’s a blatant cover up happening. You would hope given it’s the anti political corruption unit doing the investigation that it’s the former but it’s a sad indictment of both the Met and govt that the latter seems the most likely.

Don't want to link it but there's an article in the Daily Fail claims a tipsy no. 10 staffer boasted to their security team that "we're the only people in the country allowed to party" and this incendiary quote was passed to Sue Gray's enquiry, leaving me with little doubt that the met have been called in to provide cover, rather than for any genuine investigation.

[TobyD]

So with this new intervention to stop Gray publishing the bits they are investigating it seems either the Met are taking it very seriously and doing things by the book, or there’s a blatant cover up happening. You would hope given it’s the anti political corruption unit doing the investigation that it’s the former but it’s a sad indictment of both the Met and govt that the latter seems the most likely.

Don't want to link it but there's an article in the Daily Fail claims a tipsy no. 10 staffer boasted to their security team that "we're the only people in the country allowed to party" and this incendiary quote was passed to Sue Gray's enquiry, leaving me with little doubt that the met have been called in to provide cover, rather than for any genuine investigation.

There's also an article in the Sunday Times stating that number ten staff had to stop giving Johnson high security documents to 'work' on at home because he never looked at them, but left them lying around so that any friends of his or Carrie's who happened to drop in could see them.
You'd have thought that would be a serious disciplinary issue on itself,  in any other job, it would be. 

[mrjonathanr]

Given the Met’s track record on this, an excess of zeal seems the least plausible explanation for their request:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/cressida-dick-escapes-inquiry-after-25776230

Irrespective of the truth, the public perception of this will be terrible.


Edit - reply to dr_botnik

[DAVETHOMAS90]

 

I couldn't find the guillotine emoji.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

You know how much May will have enjoyed this:

[SA Chris]

saw a tweet - "May enters, carrying a cold dish".