If you have time, watch this. Edit. Its been posted before

I watched it all. To save you 25 mins, it basically says that his statement was written with the aid and advice of a lawyer.

Which is hardly surprising, anybody with any sense would have done the same, given the seriousness of the issue.

As such, it's been presented so carefully that there are few holes to be picked.

Nevertheless there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Whether or not we get to ask those questions, and whether or not they will be answered satisfactorily, remains to be seen.
 
Not sure quite how it’s relevant though. I think most people aren’t in any doubt whatsoever that he went to Barnard Castle for “a ride out” for his wife’s birthday and therefore made an unnecessary journey against his own policies. And the biggest issue being that he made up an elaborate lie about testing his eyesight. Whether it could be picked apart in a court of law isn’t really relevant now, is it?
 
atypical_boro said:
Not sure quite how it’s relevant though. I think most people aren’t in any doubt whatsoever that he went to Barnard Castle for “a ride out” for his wife’s birthday and therefore made an unnecessary journey against his own policies. And the biggest issue being that he made up an elaborate lie about testing his eyesight. Whether it could be picked apart in a court of law isn’t really relevant now, is it?
Click to expand...
The police investigation is ongoing.
 
atypical_boro said:
Fair enough, but it I think it’ll prove futile. I think this is about someone being a d*ck rather than being a full-on crim.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how it will be reported. They may not take any public action whatever the findings. Even if they conclude existing and possibly further breaches are considered an unreasonable excuse, they have let most people of with warnings. The PCC wanted it investigated for public interest reasons; he may say something for the same reason.
 
atypical_boro said:
Not sure quite how it’s relevant though. I think most people aren’t in any doubt whatsoever that he went to Barnard Castle for “a ride out” for his wife’s birthday and therefore made an unnecessary journey against his own policies. And the biggest issue being that he made up an elaborate lie about testing his eyesight. Whether it could be picked apart in a court of law isn’t really relevant now, is it?
Click to expand...
I think the first priority for the lawyers was to make sure his statement didn't put him in jeopardy of being prosecuted. The purpose of the statement was obviously to try and put the PR fire out (albeit its probably had the opposite effect), but the content will have been determined by the legal risk to him I'm sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top