Sue Gray report going through legal checks

It seems a standard tactic from this Government to release bad news late on a Friday so that Government ministers have the whole weekend to think about responding. The Gray Report will emerge after 4pm today when everybody has left Parliament no doubt. Obvious delaying tactic and against the promise that it would be released without redaction and delay.
they are already lying again stating NO10 hasn't seen it....thats because the NO10 legal team have it...its the NO10 legal team who need to see it to sanitise it and make it much more palatable for MP viewing. We really are in the midst of a dictatorship in this country basically like Trump only we dont have a constitution to get rid of him and he has just made it harder for traditional labour voters to vote for him through this ID legislation that isn't even needed.
Evil running this country.
 
I do t see why anybody named in Sue Gray’s report shouldn’t be named. They have had weeks to prepare themselves for its publication so a supposed mad scramble to remove names is well frankly ridiculous.

If you were not involved in the authorisation of the party but merely attended, are possibly subject to a police investigation and disciplinary actions, I think putting your name out to the public is harsh and prejudicial for someone who is just rank and file and, as I say, probably entitled to think 'well it must be ok to attend because these people must know the rules better than me, since they set them'.
 
Last edited:
If you follow Russ Jones on that Twitter you may have seen his helpful "Week In Tory" posts?

This is so far this week...

1. The sleaze watchdog said Johnson escaping the sack for his earlier £142k decorating corruption was "bonkers"

2. During that week's ludicrous scandal, he’d told parliament he'd never even met the wallpaper lady

3. He'd met wallpaper lady during the cause of this week's ludicrous scandal: his birthday party during lockdown

4. On the day of that shindig, the PM wrote a letter a 7-year-old telling her she was right not to have a birthday party, but still claims he didn't know the rules

5. Johnson said his bash wasn’t a even party, just 30 pals, singing happy birthday, drinking, breaking all the guidelines, and being ambushed by cakes

6. Anyway, he said only his essential work-bubble had attended

7. "Work-bubbles" never existed. That’s not a thing

8. And that “work-bubble” seemed to include his wife, his favourite interior designer, and a passing make-up artist. And Rishi Sunak

9. Sadly, for the 2938th time, his barber couldn’t make it

10. Yet another former Tory minister breached rules over lobbying and Covid contracts

11. A report found after 12 years and £14 billion of implementation costs, Universal Credit still isn’t fit for purpose

12. Another report found the govt’s Help to Buy scheme to fix the housing crisis wasted £29 billion and made the housing crisis even worse

13. Playmobil chancellor Rishi Sunak wrote off £4.3 billion in fraud

14. So Nadine Dorries, a beef-witted, one-woman riot of idiocy, scrapped funding for kids TV cos we don’t have any money left. Nnng!

15. And the minister for tackling fraud resigned cos there's too much fraud

16. Dominic Raab confirmed to journalists that ministers - including the PM - must resign if they break the law or lie to parliament

17. Journalists asked him if that meant Johnson should resign if he was found to have done those things

18. Raab said no, of course not

19. Johnson confirmed the govt would publish all of Sue Gray’s report

20. Raab said they wouldn’t

21. Downing St said they would

22. Johnson said it would just be highlights

23. Downing St said it would be most of it

24. Raab said it might be redacted

25. No 10 said it might just be an executive summary of all their misconduct, because the full report might be too long

26. Yeah mate, I know the feeling.

27. Johnson said publication would be "on the basis previously stated", which by now could mean literally anything

28. And then the police rocked up

29. So the UK had now reached the stage where our govt was grateful to be facing criminal investigations, cos it gave Johnson an excuse to delay Sue Gray

30. Police said there was no reason to delay Sue Gray

31. The govt said Oh fukk

32. Feral gonad Sajid Javid told Radio4 that Tory inconsistencies were damaging democracy

33. Radio4 asked him if he’d just admitted Tory inconsistencies were damaging democracy

34. He immediately denied he’d said it. Literally the next sentence

35. Then the Tories had to launch an official investigation into their own Islamophobia

36. And, look, I hate to break this to you, but this thread has still only reached TUESDAY

[Crack a bottle or do some primal screaming, and then let's press on]

37. On Wed Johnson told parliament he hadn’t lied, and we have the fastest growing economy in G7

38. Half the G7 is growing faster than us

39. So that was a lie to parliament about a lie to parliament, to detract from another lie to parliament. The famed bull**** turducken!

40. In December Johnson said it was "absolute nonsense" that he’d intervened to prioritise the evacuation of dogs from Afghanistan over the rescue of humans

41. This week an email showed he’d personally intervened

42. Raab said the email didn't exist, while reading from it

43. Jacob Rees-Mogg, who looks like somebody made the Microsoft Paperclip stand to attention, said "My experience is very few people lie in public life"

44. In-house Tory jazz-mag The Spectator called JRM "laughable" and the Tory Reform Group called him "irresponsible"

45. But only 3 days into the week, the only ministers still prepared to defend the PM are laughable bassoon JRM, and the exuberantly stupid flapdoodle Nadine Dorries

46. And this week's really big bag of insane bo11ocks is still to come


Times are hard, and gonna get worse. And this govt won't help - it's too busy trying to save the abandoned candyfloss lodged behind a puppy-gate in Number 10.
Simultaneously funny and depressing.
 
They are going to plead peer pressure including Johnson himself who after 25 mins realised it was a party and not a work event and "got out of there".
No no no
He maintained it was a work event and he did no wrong
He apologized for how it might look but he thinks (lies) that it was a work event however even work events and gatherings weren’t allowed back then and he knows that but won’t allow questions on this or just flat out won’t answer
 
If you were not involved in the authorisation of the party but merely attended, are possibly subject to a police investigation and disciplinary actions, I think putting your name out to the public is harsh and prejudicial for someone who is just rank and file and, as I say, probably entitled to think 'well it must be ok to attend because these people must know the rules better than me, since they set them'.
Yes I get that point of view but at the same time I read the concerns about sanitisation and names could be removed that shouldn't if you start to go down that road. I listened to Shadow Culture Secretary MP Lucy Powell on Politics Live yesterday say exactly that in response to the comments by Scott Benton ( laughable Tory Boy robot) saying that names shouldn't be released at all.
 
I do t see why anybody named in Sue Gray’s report shouldn’t be named. They have had weeks to prepare themselves for its publication so a supposed mad scramble to remove names is well frankly
There's an assumption here that everyone named has done something wrong, which is unlikely to be the case.

There may be some who have provided evidence against the law breakers, or others who are neutral.

Should they be named?

And even those who has done wrong haven't been subject to the riguers of an investigation and until that's the case they shouldn't be named either.

There's a lot of bias on this subject, which I understand as it's a very emotive subject, but the majority of people involved aren't elected politicians and will be subject to the checks, balances and protections of HR policy and law.

There is a point where people could or should be maned, but that time isn't now, unless they are elected politicians, in which case they're in a different situation, with different considerations around public interest.
 
There's an assumption here that everyone named has done something wrong, which is unlikely to be the case.

There may be some who have provided evidence against the law breakers, or others who are neutral.

Should they be named?

And even those who has done wrong haven't been subject to the riguers of an investigation and until that's the case they shouldn't be named either.

There's a lot of bias on this subject, which I understand as it's a very emotive subject, but the majority of people involved aren't elected politicians and will be subject to the checks, balances and protections of HR policy and law.

There is a point where people could or should be maned, but that time isn't now, unless they are elected politicians, in which case they're in a different situation, with different considerations around public interest.
Well if you take the view that all those unelected government people should not be named then I suspect most of the names will be taken off. Where do you start? Jack Doyle is unelected as is Martin Reynolds as was James Slack now political editor of the Daily Mail. Names we know we should be aware of. What about Allegra Stratton and all those giggling at the press conference? Lee Cain? Should all those names be withheld.

I appreciate that this is a Report on the culture of Downing St and it should highlight those responsible i.e at he very top i.e Johnson himself. We all know he was involved and I guess what we are wanting his head above anybody else - but for me, anyway, it doesn't excuse all the others who have played their part in the two fingered behaviour to the vast majority of those who made sacrifices during the lockdowns. I get we don't want Johnson to deflect and blame others but there are more than a few involved here.
 
Well if you take the view that all those unelected government people should not be named then I suspect most of the names will be taken off. Where do you start? Jack Doyle is unelected as is Martin Reynolds as was James Slack now political editor of the Daily Mail. Names we know we should be aware of. What about Allegra Stratton and all those giggling at the press conference? Lee Cain? Should all those names be withheld.

I appreciate that this is a Report on the culture of Downing St and it should highlight those responsible i.e at he very top i.e Johnson himself. We all know he was involved and I guess what we are wanting his head above anybody else - but for me, anyway, it doesn't excuse all the others who have played their part in the two fingered behaviour to the vast majority of those who made sacrifices during the lockdowns. I get we don't want Johnson to deflect and blame others but there are more than a few involved here.
I don't think anyone who is eventually shown to have broken the lockdown laws should be excused, quite the opposite in fact, but the point in making is there needs to be sure process and it should be at the most appropriate time and that time isn't now, as much as we'd all like it to be.
 
Anyone who broke the laws, they weren’t ‘rules’ I don’t think, should be named and prosecuted. Politician, Prime Minister, civil servant, journalist, decorator, whoever. Claiming ignorance is not a defence. Everybody was aware of the laws at the time, how important it was that they were adhered to and followed to the letter. There is no defence with this.

The thing with this scandal is that it’s so transparent to everyone. Normally these sorts of things start small and stay that way, buried without much attention. You have to read Private Eye to find out about stuff. Or by the time a huge scandal emerges, those involved have retired or died. Occasionally an MP will resign. But this is in plain sight. EVERYBODY knows it’s corruption. And it won’t be going away any time soon because whoever started leaking it originally will have a lot more material to release.

It’s another disgrace, of course, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg with this government and this PM.
 
I don't think anyone who is eventually shown to have broken the lockdown laws should be excused, quite the opposite in fact, but the point in making is there needs to be sure process and it should be at the most appropriate time and that time isn't now, as much as we'd all like it to be.
Academic now anyway. Gray has been told to remove almost all of it
 
Why would the Sue Gray report prejudice anything? It's not like any of this is going to end up in a jury trial.

Unless there’s a lot more to this then we know, but all of this is now a complete farce.
The best thing that could have happened to all those involved was for the Met Police to decide to investigate. They could then say "you can't prejudice me in any police investigation" to Sue Gray. Its a collision I am convinced of it. The timing was impeccably convenient to Johnson. He will be laughing his socks off in Chequers this weekend.
 
The best thing that could have happened to all those involved was for the Met Police to decide to investigate. They could then say "you can't prejudice me in any police investigation" to Sue Gray. Its a collision I am convinced of it. The timing was impeccably convenient to Johnson. He will be laughing his socks off in Chequers this weekend.

Looks like now Gray won't publish the report at all.
 
Back
Top