Covid inquiry evidence

h_m_boro said:
Just been reading that the reason they can't/won't pass over the WhatsApp messages is that they have already been passed on to the Met Police.

Suppose if you want evidence destroying/ losing may as well let the experts deal with it .......🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...

Oh dear. Didn't they realise this might delay things?
 
So the corrupt slug has just said that he has handed over all his documents to the Cabinet Office and wants them to release them unredacted to the inquiry.

All of his documents? No chance. Not a snowball's chance in hell. Only the ones that clear him of any dodgy behaviour and with a bit of luck make scapegoats of the rest of his gang of thieves.
 
ThePrisoner said:
So the corrupt slug has just said that he has handed over all his documents to the Cabinet Office and wants them to release them unredacted to the inquiry.

All of his documents? No chance. Not a snowball's chance in hell. Only the ones that clear him of any dodgy behaviour and with a bit of luck make scapegoats of the rest of his gang of thieves.
Click to expand...
Could be an attempt at clever wording? "Documents' but not text messages or diaries?
 
According to latest reports - he has handed over documents and Watts App messages urging the government office to release them to the inquiry team.

Great move - Sunak et al will be incriminated. They will have to find a reason not to hand them over.
Johnson in the good books.
Hate him with a passion but - a good move
 
1finny said:
According to latest reports - he has handed over documents and Watts App messages urging the government office to release them to the inquiry team.

Great move - Sunak et al will be incriminated. They will have to find a reason not to hand them over.
Johnson in the good books.
Hate him with a passion but - a good move
Click to expand...
It'd incredible that the government will almost certainly withhold evidence from an enquiry it commissioned, led by a Judge it appointed.

I think the whole issue of what will be redacted from the material and by whom, will end up in the courts.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
It'd incredible that the government will almost certainly withhold evidence from an enquiry it commissioned, led by a Judge it appointed.

I think the whole issue of what will be redacted from the material and by whom, will end up in the courts.
Click to expand...
Hopefully it sets a precedent then that anybody or any company accused of any wrongdoing, and asked to produce any sort evidence by the authorities will just say 'I don't fancy that as it will incriminate me / us and our mates', so do one.
 
Caesium137 said:
Hopefully it sets a precedent then that anybody or any company accused of any wrongdoing, and asked to produce any sort evidence by the authorities will just say 'I don't fancy that as it will incriminate me / us and our mates', so do one.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting point, because in law there is a basic right that you cannot be forced to self-incriminate, hence the right to silence etc.

But in this case and these circumstances I think this position is the correct one; these are public servants in the highest office and the public interest outweighs the first point.

If the enquiry do see the material in an unredacted form it will be ingesting to see how they treat other issues uncovered by it, which I'm certain there will be.

Are they duty bound to highlight breaches of the ministerial code, legislative breaches or poor conduct?

And is so will this be included in the report?

Altogether I think the whole issue further exposes the absolute disregard and arrogant contempt of the standards that the government should be adhering to.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
It's an interesting point, because in law there is a basic right that you cannot be forced to self-incriminate, hence the right to silence etc.
Click to expand...
In some cases you can be done for not providing what is requested though I think?

Or is that just civil cases?

Alex Jones got a default judgement in the Sandy Hook cases for not providing the requested documentation / videos / broadcasts etc. of what he had claimed. Obviously because it made look like a callous madman who had defamed dead children and their parents.

So I suppose it is a question of is providing communications you have had with another party via text as incriminating yourself?
 
Caesium137 said:
In some cases you can be done for not providing what is requested though I think?

Or is that just civil cases?

Alex Jones got a default judgement in the Sandy Hook cases for not providing the requested documentation / videos / broadcasts etc. of what he had claimed. Obviously because it made look like a callous madman who had defamed dead children and their parents.

So I suppose it is a question of is providing communications you have had with another party via text as incriminating yourself?
Click to expand...
Depends upon the contents I suppose.

The overriding factor for me is that these people hold public office and should be accountable and transparent in that role - if they don't welcome the scrutiny then they shouldn't be in government.
 
Caesium137 said:
Alex Jones got a default judgement in the Sandy Hook cases for not providing the requested documentation / videos / broadcasts etc. of what he had claimed.
Click to expand...
Must admit I didn't follow it closely (or know how many trials he's faced) but didn't he lose the case because his defence team when making disclosure to the other side failed to redact his messages & so they could see that he knew he was lying, didn't believe his sources that it was a false flag operation but proceeded to broadcast that anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top