ThePrisoner
Well-known member
I reckon Johnson will have self-defined the scope of relevant dates and will have held back any documented communications that did not take place on specific dates.
Its an inquiry not a criminal case, the same protections don't apply. A defendants right to remain silent assumes a defendant. The closest this gets is that we all have the right to not answer questions. In an inquiry the documentation is evidence. It is against the law to withold material evidence.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.
The dude can't even get glasses which fit.
Its an inquiry not a criminal case, the same protections don't apply. A defendants right to remain silent assumes a defendant. The closest this gets is that we all have the right to not answer questions. In an inquiry the documentation is evidence. It is against the law to withold material evidence.
I get that, but what if there is evidence that incriminates lockdown breaches for example?Its an inquiry not a criminal case, the same protections don't apply. A defendants right to remain silent assumes a defendant. The closest this gets is that we all have the right to not answer questions. In an inquiry the documentation is evidence. It is against the law to withold material evidence.
I don't know Jonny but I would think its the same as, for example you kill your wife and bury her under the patio. The police get a warrant and dig your patio up. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy if you are under investigation, assuming a judge agrees, of course.I get that, but what if there is evidence that incriminates lockdown breaches for example?
That's the point I think the government will possibly argue at Judicial review, albeit I think they would lose.
I get that, but what if there is evidence that incriminates lockdown breaches for example?
That's the point I think the government will possibly argue at Judicial review, albeit I think they would lose.
That was part of the compensation hearings afterwards, the initial trial was a default judgement by the judge in the case as he didn't take part in the disclosure hearings, they sent random people as the corporate representative and didn't give the full disclosure that was requested.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?
The optics are absolutely terrible here - Sunak making the Govt look very, very guilty indeed. I'd guess the documents and messages etc will open up a huge can of worms around bad advice, avoidable deaths and dodgy contracts in black and white for friends of Ministers.
Already another shambles for Sunak and the Tories.The optics are absolutely terrible here - Sunak making the Govt look very, very guilty indeed. I'd guess the documents and messages etc will open up a huge can of worms around bad advice, avoidable deaths and dodgy contracts in black and white for friends of Ministers.
Corruption reigns in the Tory party.
WOW!!!!!!!Holy fcuk. Times reporter says he has a list of some of the questions that Hallet sent to Johnson earlier this year.
The fat lying fcuk has destroyed the entire country hasn't he?
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
Isn't hanging still on the books for treason?WOW!!!!!!!
And the police would need a warrant to do so and the suspect would still have a right to silence, in any circumstances.I don't know Jonny but I would think its the same as, for example you kill your wife and bury her under the patio. The police get a warrant and dig your patio up. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy if you are under investigation, assuming a judge agrees, of course.
Given their track record the mind boggles at what could be within the material.It’s a possibility isn’t it?
Just begs a question.
Is it ‘just’ that they are withholding the documentation because there is ‘evidence of criminal acts by those concerned?
Suppose it doesn’t matter with this lot - right and wrong has merged in their favour