What’s your opinion on this - sue grey revelations

ThePrisoner

Well-known member
As expected.

Her inquiry is just another whitewash. She works for Johnson. She gives her findings to Johnson. He reads them and decides what to do with them. He can accept them, accept parts or reject them. The suspect appoints the detective who investigates him then he decides whether he is guilty or not. It's a farce completely worthy of this banana monarchy.
 

Caretaker1

Well-known member
As expected.

Her inquiry is just another whitewash. She works for Johnson. She gives her findings to Johnson. He reads them and decides what to do with them. He can accept them, accept parts or reject them. The suspect appoints the detective who investigates him then he decides whether he is guilty or not. It's a farce completely worthy of this banana monarchy.
Schoolboy marks his own homework.
 

zzzzz

Well-known member
An invesigation on the PM carried out by...... someone who works for and reports only to the PM.
What did anyone expect?
Shame after shame after shame.
 

JonnyHistory

Well-known member
Has a track record for getting rid of paper trails and as Humphreys said to the PM in Yes Prime Minister - only ever initiate an investigation if you know the outcome beforehand
The episode concerning a report Humphrey did on the fellow who admitted being a Russian spy and defected was hilarious. Always enjoyed it when Hacker got the upper hand occasionally.
 

JonnyHistory

Well-known member
He does doesn’t he

I thought that as well
Thirded here, it was his only line of defence when questioned, to have it his whole job rest on the outcome of this is a bold move to make... unless you already know the outcome of course ;)

It will be a case of some people getting fed to the wolves, admission of some parties being unlawful whilst others will get a pass as "work events" but most importantly Boris will not have been aware or complicit in anything.
 

Maccarone

Well-known member
Nothing surprises me anymore with this government, I thought this only happened in corrupt African and other dodgy countries.
How wrong could I be.
 

Abel Tasman

Well-known member
I dont get it. It doesn’t need this Sue Gray report to say a party was held and the Pm was there. he’s already admitted it and apologised.

Am I missing something here????
 

JonnyHistory

Well-known member
I dont get it. It doesn’t need this Sue Gray report to say a party was held and the Pm was there. he’s already admitted it and apologised.

Am I missing something here????
It needs to show that he is not culpable or can be placed anywhere for a significant time. He has already got the narrative out "he thought it was a work event" if/when the report agrees with that assertion he has a useable excuse. Very much in the "eye test" category of bull but a position Johnson hopes he can ride out as long as he is apologetic enough.
 

Abel Tasman

Well-known member
It needs to show that he is not culpable or can be placed anywhere for a significant time. He has already got the narrative out "he thought it was a work event" if/when the report agrees with that assertion he has a useable excuse. Very much in the "eye test" category of bull but a position Johnson hopes he can ride out as long as he is apologetic enough.
Hang on. If you have to apologise like he has for attending a gathering which everybody admitted was wrong and in the circumstances appallingly insensitive underlines his guilt. it doesn't need a Civil servant to decide that issue. "Work" or not.

The whole scenario is utterly bonkers.
 

JackG

Well-known member
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at his next (Wednesday?) audience with the Queen. I suspect he may still be 'isolating' however.
 

JonnyHistory

Well-known member
Hang on. If you have to apologise like he has for attending a gathering which everybody admitted was wrong and in the circumstances appallingly insensitive underlines his guilt. it doesn't need a Civil servant to decide that issue. "Work" or not.

The whole scenario is utterly bonkers.
No, I agree, I am just outlining what the actual process is doing.

It is the actions of a man with no shame and no morality. The whole front bench is complicit if they alow this to be quietly killed in a favourable report.

The key question I don't understand is why are the police just talking with the government and not investigating? I mean they essentially have eyewitnesses to the event and the attendees. Two-tier democracy at its finest.
 
Top
X