Sue Gray report going through legal checks

Pak_Doo_Ik said:
I think that was Monty Pythons first attempt at the Spanish Inquisition sketch

John Cleese and Michael Palin were worried that "Nobody expects the Thames Gateway London Partnership" didn't quite have a ring to it.
Click to expand...
I know. My mind had a trip when I first read laughings post
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Depends on whether the report names absolutely everyone who attended every gathering or not. There'll be some pretty junior civil servants there I'm sure. The likes of diary managers who might have felt peer pressure or an expectation from their bosses to "show their face" etc. Not always easy to say no, particularly so in an environment like number 10 I imagine.

That doesn't mean they're innocent or shouldn't face disciplinary action (or even fines). But to drag their names into the public circus Johnson and his senior officials are responsible for is harsh.
 
festa5 said:
Depends on whether the report names absolutely everyone who attended every gathering or not. There'll be some pretty junior civil servants there I'm sure. The likes of diary managers who might have felt peer pressure or an expectation from their bosses to "show their face" etc. Not always easy to say no, particularly so in an environment like number 10 I imagine.

That doesn't mean they're innocent or shouldn't face disciplinary action (or even fines). But to drag their names into the public circus Johnson and his senior officials are responsible for is harsh.
Click to expand...
I'll disagree with you and believe the public can make their own mind up about who was there and under what circumstances found them there.

If what has occurred is peer pressure as you propose could be a factor and reflects the culture going on in Downing St then that needs highlighting but it shouldn't be down to Government lawyers to decide who should be exposed and who shouldn't. .
 
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".
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
I'll disagree with you and believe the public can make their own mind up about who was there and under what circumstances found them there.

If what has occurred is peer pressure as you propose could be a factor and reflects the culture going on in Downing St then that needs highlighting but it shouldn't be down to Government lawyers to decide who should be exposed and who shouldn't. .
Click to expand...
Not sure why the public need to make their mind up about a (for example) naive 22 year old diary manager on £25k a year breaking the rules because their boss told them it'd be ok.

Feels a bit like a lynch mob mentality to me. I'd rather the anger be focussed at the right people personally. I'd argue it also suits Johnson to have massive lists of names published to help him try and dilute culpability.
 
festa5 said:
Depends on whether the report names absolutely everyone who attended every gathering or not. There'll be some pretty junior civil servants there I'm sure. The likes of diary managers who might have felt peer pressure or an expectation from their bosses to "show their face" etc. Not always easy to say no, particularly so in an environment like number 10 I imagine.

That doesn't mean they're innocent or shouldn't face disciplinary action (or even fines). But to drag their names into the public circus Johnson and his senior officials are responsible for is harsh.
Click to expand...

Agree with this, especially if you are a junior staffer or a youngster in your 20s and it’s been a normalised thing to have drinks events and parties at No.10 throughout. Can see why some would attend and even feel pressured to attend.
Doesn’t make it right, they were clearly in the wrong and should have known better but they certainly don’t deserve to be publicly shamed, vilified and dragged through our irresponsible media circus, in the same way the ‘leadership’ and senior management do.
 
festa5 said:
Not sure why the public need to make their mind up about a (for example) naive 22 year old diary manager on £25k a year breaking the rules because their boss told them it'd be ok.

Feels a bit like a lynch mob mentality to me. I'd rather the anger be focussed at the right people personally. I'd argue it also suits Johnson to have massive lists of names published to help him try and dilute culpability.
Click to expand...
Pointless getting triggered by something that you are guessing could be the situation. We don’t know if a “£25k a year intern” was there on bosses orders or not. And we also don’t know if the Gray report will even mention every name in attendance and that’s the reason why it has been delayed. Frankly the delay is obvious to me. It’s a political decision not a legal one.
 
festa5 said:
Depends on whether the report names absolutely everyone who attended every gathering or not. There'll be some pretty junior civil servants there I'm sure. The likes of diary managers who might have felt peer pressure or an expectation from their bosses to "show their face" etc. Not always easy to say no, particularly so in an environment like number 10 I imagine.

That doesn't mean they're innocent or shouldn't face disciplinary action (or even fines). But to drag their names into the public circus Johnson and his senior officials are responsible for is harsh.
Click to expand...
Spot on, and with bullying rife the heads that roll and prosecutions that follow (as if), should be from the top. It's not as if they're serving any purpose.
 
Zoophonic said:
Pointless getting triggered by something that you are guessing could be the situation. We don’t know if a “£25k a year intern” was there on bosses orders or not. And we also don’t know if the Gray report will even mention every name in attendance and that’s the reason why it has been delayed. Frankly the delay is obvious to me. It’s a political decision not a legal one.
Click to expand...
Whoa steady on throwing "triggered" about! Was just having the debate in response to the viewpoint it should name and shame absolutely everyone who attended.

You are of course correct though, all hypothetical at this point and I doubt it will list everyone in attendance anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top