Next Tory leader odds and polls: the favourites to replace Boris Johnson
PM warned Sue Gray report could force him to quit Boris Johnson has been warned that he remains in danger of being forced out of No. 10, despite the conclusion of the Metropolitan Police’s inquiries into lockdown parties.
1 of the above articles gives rise to an interesting (at least to me) point of law.
Of you have watched any of the gazillions of US shows involving the legal system, you will no doubt be aware of plea bargaining, where deals are done in relation to charges/sentencing.
It is not that simple in England/Wales. It used to be the case that plea bargaining was not allowed. The position has relaxed in relation to sentencing in relation to Guilty pleas. But the position is somewhat complex in relation to dropping charges. A "accept 1 fine and that's it" deal would be on rather shaky legal ground.
The whole Met Partygate enquiry has been ridiculous. Secrecy when it suits, and public announcements about people not being charged. While conveniently ignoring the simple fact that the Met were watching/allowing these parties to take place, while standing outside. Coupled with public pronouncements that there was nothing to investigate. Surely this is a massive conflict of interest, and a separate force should have done the investigating?
Meanwhile, Sue Gray is in an invidious position. Her ultimate employer is Boris Johnson. She cannot investigate without appropriate permissions-which appear to have come at the cost of informing Boris along the way. Civil Servants may strive to be independent, but they take instructions from the Government of the day.
1 of the above articles gives rise to an interesting (at least to me) point of law.
Of you have watched any of the gazillions of US shows involving the legal system, you will no doubt be aware of plea bargaining, where deals are done in relation to charges/sentencing.
It is not that simple in England/Wales. It used to be the case that plea bargaining was not allowed. The position has relaxed in relation to sentencing in relation to Guilty pleas. But the position is somewhat complex in relation to dropping charges. A "accept 1 fine and that's it" deal would be on rather shaky legal ground.
The whole Met Partygate enquiry has been ridiculous. Secrecy when it suits, and public announcements about people not being charged. While conveniently ignoring the simple fact that the Met were watching/allowing these parties to take place, while standing outside. Coupled with public pronouncements that there was nothing to investigate. Surely this is a massive conflict of interest, and a separate force should have done the investigating?
Meanwhile, Sue Gray is in an invidious position. Her ultimate employer is Boris Johnson. She cannot investigate without appropriate permissions-which appear to have come at the cost of informing Boris along the way. Civil Servants may strive to be independent, but they take instructions from the Government of the day.
The whole think stinks. The Ian Dunt article above made many valid points. I find the whole process of their determination to defend the indefensible, preposterous. On the one hand ministers have trooped out to minimise the Boris involvement in his Birthday celebrations. They all said that he wasnt there for long, was ambushed by cake, etc, etc. Many pundits have said categorically that this was the least serious of the rule breaking events. Yet this is the one that he was fined for. On that basis how could he not get fined for the 6 others he attended? There were invitations, they were told to bring their own booze, there were quizzes, karaoke, he made speeches, some were leaving parties, etc, etc. The Met are incompetent, rather like Boris.
1 of the above articles gives rise to an interesting (at least to me) point of law.
Of you have watched any of the gazillions of US shows involving the legal system, you will no doubt be aware of plea bargaining, where deals are done in relation to charges/sentencing.
It is not that simple in England/Wales. It used to be the case that plea bargaining was not allowed. The position has relaxed in relation to sentencing in relation to Guilty pleas. But the position is somewhat complex in relation to dropping charges. A "accept 1 fine and that's it" deal would be on rather shaky legal ground.
The whole Met Partygate enquiry has been ridiculous. Secrecy when it suits, and public announcements about people not being charged. While conveniently ignoring the simple fact that the Met were watching/allowing these parties to take place, while standing outside. Coupled with public pronouncements that there was nothing to investigate. Surely this is a massive conflict of interest, and a separate force should have done the investigating?
Meanwhile, Sue Gray is in an invidious position. Her ultimate employer is Boris Johnson. She cannot investigate without appropriate permissions-which appear to have come at the cost of informing Boris along the way. Civil Servants may strive to be independent, but they take instructions from the Government of the day.
The whole think stinks. The Ian Dunt article above made many valid points. I find the whole process of their determination to defend the indefensible, preposterous. On the one hand ministers have trooped out to minimise the Boris involvement in his Birthday celebrations. They all said that he wasnt there for long, was ambushed by cake, etc, etc. Many pundits have said categorically that this was the least serious of the rule breaking events. Yet this is the one that he was fined for. On that basis how could he not get fined for the 6 others he attended? There were invitations, they were told to bring their own booze, there were quizzes, karaoke, he made speeches, some were leaving parties, etc, etc. The Met are incompetent, rather like Boris.
I have to say-I think the Met are worse than incompetent.
1 of the above articles gives rise to an interesting (at least to me) point of law.
Of you have watched any of the gazillions of US shows involving the legal system, you will no doubt be aware of plea bargaining, where deals are done in relation to charges/sentencing.
It is not that simple in England/Wales. It used to be the case that plea bargaining was not allowed. The position has relaxed in relation to sentencing in relation to Guilty pleas. But the position is somewhat complex in relation to dropping charges. A "accept 1 fine and that's it" deal would be on rather shaky legal ground.
The whole Met Partygate enquiry has been ridiculous. Secrecy when it suits, and public announcements about people not being charged. While conveniently ignoring the simple fact that the Met were watching/allowing these parties to take place, while standing outside. Coupled with public pronouncements that there was nothing to investigate. Surely this is a massive conflict of interest, and a separate force should have done the investigating?
Meanwhile, Sue Gray is in an invidious position. Her ultimate employer is Boris Johnson. She cannot investigate without appropriate permissions-which appear to have come at the cost of informing Boris along the way. Civil Servants may strive to be independent, but they take instructions from the Government of the day.
The whole think stinks. The Ian Dunt article above made many valid points. I find the whole process of their determination to defend the indefensible, preposterous. On the one hand ministers have trooped out to minimise the Boris involvement in his Birthday celebrations. They all said that he wasnt there for long, was ambushed by cake, etc, etc. Many pundits have said categorically that this was the least serious of the rule breaking events. Yet this is the one that he was fined for. On that basis how could he not get fined for the 6 others he attended? There were invitations, they were told to bring their own booze, there were quizzes, karaoke, he made speeches, some were leaving parties, etc, etc. The Met are incompetent, rather like Boris.
I have to say-I think the Met are worse than incompetent.
1 of the above articles gives rise to an interesting (at least to me) point of law.
Of you have watched any of the gazillions of US shows involving the legal system, you will no doubt be aware of plea bargaining, where deals are done in relation to charges/sentencing.
It is not that simple in England/Wales. It used to be the case that plea bargaining was not allowed. The position has relaxed in relation to sentencing in relation to Guilty pleas. But the position is somewhat complex in relation to dropping charges. A "accept 1 fine and that's it" deal would be on rather shaky legal ground.
The whole Met Partygate enquiry has been ridiculous. Secrecy when it suits, and public announcements about people not being charged. While conveniently ignoring the simple fact that the Met were watching/allowing these parties to take place, while standing outside. Coupled with public pronouncements that there was nothing to investigate. Surely this is a massive conflict of interest, and a separate force should have done the investigating?
Meanwhile, Sue Gray is in an invidious position. Her ultimate employer is Boris Johnson. She cannot investigate without appropriate permissions-which appear to have come at the cost of informing Boris along the way. Civil Servants may strive to be independent, but they take instructions from the Government of the day.
The whole think stinks. The Ian Dunt article above made many valid points. I find the whole process of their determination to defend the indefensible, preposterous. On the one hand ministers have trooped out to minimise the Boris involvement in his Birthday celebrations. They all said that he wasnt there for long, was ambushed by cake, etc, etc. Many pundits have said categorically that this was the least serious of the rule breaking events. Yet this is the one that he was fined for. On that basis how could he not get fined for the 6 others he attended? There were invitations, they were told to bring their own booze, there were quizzes, karaoke, he made speeches, some were leaving parties, etc, etc. The Met are incompetent, rather like Boris.
I have to say-I think the Met are worse than incompetent.
I think they are complicit.
Boris Johnson and Sue Gray clash over ‘secret meeting’ about Partygate report
1 of the above articles gives rise to an interesting (at least to me) point of law.
Of you have watched any of the gazillions of US shows involving the legal system, you will no doubt be aware of plea bargaining, where deals are done in relation to charges/sentencing.
It is not that simple in England/Wales. It used to be the case that plea bargaining was not allowed. The position has relaxed in relation to sentencing in relation to Guilty pleas. But the position is somewhat complex in relation to dropping charges. A "accept 1 fine and that's it" deal would be on rather shaky legal ground.
The whole Met Partygate enquiry has been ridiculous. Secrecy when it suits, and public announcements about people not being charged. While conveniently ignoring the simple fact that the Met were watching/allowing these parties to take place, while standing outside. Coupled with public pronouncements that there was nothing to investigate. Surely this is a massive conflict of interest, and a separate force should have done the investigating?
Meanwhile, Sue Gray is in an invidious position. Her ultimate employer is Boris Johnson. She cannot investigate without appropriate permissions-which appear to have come at the cost of informing Boris along the way. Civil Servants may strive to be independent, but they take instructions from the Government of the day.
The whole think stinks. The Ian Dunt article above made many valid points. I find the whole process of their determination to defend the indefensible, preposterous. On the one hand ministers have trooped out to minimise the Boris involvement in his Birthday celebrations. They all said that he wasnt there for long, was ambushed by cake, etc, etc. Many pundits have said categorically that this was the least serious of the rule breaking events. Yet this is the one that he was fined for. On that basis how could he not get fined for the 6 others he attended? There were invitations, they were told to bring their own booze, there were quizzes, karaoke, he made speeches, some were leaving parties, etc, etc. The Met are incompetent, rather like Boris.
I have to say-I think the Met are worse than incompetent.
1 of the above articles gives rise to an interesting (at least to me) point of law.
Of you have watched any of the gazillions of US shows involving the legal system, you will no doubt be aware of plea bargaining, where deals are done in relation to charges/sentencing.
It is not that simple in England/Wales. It used to be the case that plea bargaining was not allowed. The position has relaxed in relation to sentencing in relation to Guilty pleas. But the position is somewhat complex in relation to dropping charges. A "accept 1 fine and that's it" deal would be on rather shaky legal ground.
The whole Met Partygate enquiry has been ridiculous. Secrecy when it suits, and public announcements about people not being charged. While conveniently ignoring the simple fact that the Met were watching/allowing these parties to take place, while standing outside. Coupled with public pronouncements that there was nothing to investigate. Surely this is a massive conflict of interest, and a separate force should have done the investigating?
Meanwhile, Sue Gray is in an invidious position. Her ultimate employer is Boris Johnson. She cannot investigate without appropriate permissions-which appear to have come at the cost of informing Boris along the way. Civil Servants may strive to be independent, but they take instructions from the Government of the day.
The whole think stinks. The Ian Dunt article above made many valid points. I find the whole process of their determination to defend the indefensible, preposterous. On the one hand ministers have trooped out to minimise the Boris involvement in his Birthday celebrations. They all said that he wasnt there for long, was ambushed by cake, etc, etc. Many pundits have said categorically that this was the least serious of the rule breaking events. Yet this is the one that he was fined for. On that basis how could he not get fined for the 6 others he attended? There were invitations, they were told to bring their own booze, there were quizzes, karaoke, he made speeches, some were leaving parties, etc, etc. The Met are incompetent, rather like Boris.
I have to say-I think the Met are worse than incompetent.
1 of the above articles gives rise to an interesting (at least to me) point of law.
Of you have watched any of the gazillions of US shows involving the legal system, you will no doubt be aware of plea bargaining, where deals are done in relation to charges/sentencing.
It is not that simple in England/Wales. It used to be the case that plea bargaining was not allowed. The position has relaxed in relation to sentencing in relation to Guilty pleas. But the position is somewhat complex in relation to dropping charges. A "accept 1 fine and that's it" deal would be on rather shaky legal ground.
The whole Met Partygate enquiry has been ridiculous. Secrecy when it suits, and public announcements about people not being charged. While conveniently ignoring the simple fact that the Met were watching/allowing these parties to take place, while standing outside. Coupled with public pronouncements that there was nothing to investigate. Surely this is a massive conflict of interest, and a separate force should have done the investigating?
Meanwhile, Sue Gray is in an invidious position. Her ultimate employer is Boris Johnson. She cannot investigate without appropriate permissions-which appear to have come at the cost of informing Boris along the way. Civil Servants may strive to be independent, but they take instructions from the Government of the day.
The whole think stinks. The Ian Dunt article above made many valid points. I find the whole process of their determination to defend the indefensible, preposterous. On the one hand ministers have trooped out to minimise the Boris involvement in his Birthday celebrations. They all said that he wasnt there for long, was ambushed by cake, etc, etc. Many pundits have said categorically that this was the least serious of the rule breaking events. Yet this is the one that he was fined for. On that basis how could he not get fined for the 6 others he attended? There were invitations, they were told to bring their own booze, there were quizzes, karaoke, he made speeches, some were leaving parties, etc, etc. The Met are incompetent, rather like Boris.
I have to say-I think the Met are worse than incompetent.
1 of the above articles gives rise to an interesting (at least to me) point of law.
Of you have watched any of the gazillions of US shows involving the legal system, you will no doubt be aware of plea bargaining, where deals are done in relation to charges/sentencing.
It is not that simple in England/Wales. It used to be the case that plea bargaining was not allowed. The position has relaxed in relation to sentencing in relation to Guilty pleas. But the position is somewhat complex in relation to dropping charges. A "accept 1 fine and that's it" deal would be on rather shaky legal ground.
The whole Met Partygate enquiry has been ridiculous. Secrecy when it suits, and public announcements about people not being charged. While conveniently ignoring the simple fact that the Met were watching/allowing these parties to take place, while standing outside. Coupled with public pronouncements that there was nothing to investigate. Surely this is a massive conflict of interest, and a separate force should have done the investigating?
Meanwhile, Sue Gray is in an invidious position. Her ultimate employer is Boris Johnson. She cannot investigate without appropriate permissions-which appear to have come at the cost of informing Boris along the way. Civil Servants may strive to be independent, but they take instructions from the Government of the day.
The whole think stinks. The Ian Dunt article above made many valid points. I find the whole process of their determination to defend the indefensible, preposterous. On the one hand ministers have trooped out to minimise the Boris involvement in his Birthday celebrations. They all said that he wasnt there for long, was ambushed by cake, etc, etc. Many pundits have said categorically that this was the least serious of the rule breaking events. Yet this is the one that he was fined for. On that basis how could he not get fined for the 6 others he attended? There were invitations, they were told to bring their own booze, there were quizzes, karaoke, he made speeches, some were leaving parties, etc, etc. The Met are incompetent, rather like Boris.
I have to say-I think the Met are worse than incompetent.
1 of the above articles gives rise to an interesting (at least to me) point of law.
Of you have watched any of the gazillions of US shows involving the legal system, you will no doubt be aware of plea bargaining, where deals are done in relation to charges/sentencing.
It is not that simple in England/Wales. It used to be the case that plea bargaining was not allowed. The position has relaxed in relation to sentencing in relation to Guilty pleas. But the position is somewhat complex in relation to dropping charges. A "accept 1 fine and that's it" deal would be on rather shaky legal ground.
The whole Met Partygate enquiry has been ridiculous. Secrecy when it suits, and public announcements about people not being charged. While conveniently ignoring the simple fact that the Met were watching/allowing these parties to take place, while standing outside. Coupled with public pronouncements that there was nothing to investigate. Surely this is a massive conflict of interest, and a separate force should have done the investigating?
Meanwhile, Sue Gray is in an invidious position. Her ultimate employer is Boris Johnson. She cannot investigate without appropriate permissions-which appear to have come at the cost of informing Boris along the way. Civil Servants may strive to be independent, but they take instructions from the Government of the day.
The whole think stinks. The Ian Dunt article above made many valid points. I find the whole process of their determination to defend the indefensible, preposterous. On the one hand ministers have trooped out to minimise the Boris involvement in his Birthday celebrations. They all said that he wasnt there for long, was ambushed by cake, etc, etc. Many pundits have said categorically that this was the least serious of the rule breaking events. Yet this is the one that he was fined for. On that basis how could he not get fined for the 6 others he attended? There were invitations, they were told to bring their own booze, there were quizzes, karaoke, he made speeches, some were leaving parties, etc, etc. The Met are incompetent, rather like Boris.
I have to say-I think the Met are worse than incompetent.
Comments
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/top-tory-champagne-bottle-boris-johnson-partygate-093024615.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/name-ministers-fined-in-partygate-dominic-raab-urges-sue-gray/ar-AAXuBjK?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2046c84be4c24e8e8348101618a063b3
Boris 'was investigated over just two out of six events he attended'
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/boris-was-investigated-over-just-two-out-of-six-events-he-attended/ar-AAXuRei?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2046c84be4c24e8e8348101618a063b3
Sue Gray 'demands Partygate scandal ringleaders are named' in her report
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/sue-gray-demands-partygate-scandal-ringleaders-are-named-in-her-report/ar-AAXuTw2?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2046c84be4c24e8e8348101618a063b3
I can’t look at Johnson without feeling sick’: readers’ verdicts on Partygate
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/i-can-t-look-at-johnson-without-feeling-sick-readers-verdicts-on-partygate/ar-AAXtCBl?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2046c84be4c24e8e8348101618a063b3
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/sue-gray-s-team-alert-boris-johnson-before-naming-him-in-partygate-report/ar-AAXwexq?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=47248e110b9b46c7a4d8cee99aeaafd1
The latest Partygate fines make no sense whatsoever. We need some answers
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/the-latest-partygate-fines-make-no-sense-whatsoever-we-need-some-answers/ar-AAXwqqT?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=47248e110b9b46c7a4d8cee99aeaafd1
Next Tory leader odds and polls: the favourites to replace Boris Johnson
PM warned Sue Gray report could force him to quit
Boris Johnson has been warned that he remains in danger of being forced out of No. 10, despite the conclusion of the Metropolitan Police’s inquiries into lockdown parties.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/next-tory-leader-odds-and-polls-the-favourites-to-replace-boris-johnson/ar-AARZEQY?dicbo=v2-4e8838790b58a5fe900173050d460140
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/sue-gray-boris-johnson-had-191100852.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/cabinet-secretary-blocked-from-giving-evidence-on-partygate-to-committee/ar-AAXwmyB?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=47248e110b9b46c7a4d8cee99aeaafd1
Of you have watched any of the gazillions of US shows involving the legal system, you will no doubt be aware of plea bargaining, where deals are done in relation to charges/sentencing.
It is not that simple in England/Wales. It used to be the case that plea bargaining was not allowed. The position has relaxed in relation to sentencing in relation to Guilty pleas. But the position is somewhat complex in relation to dropping charges. A "accept 1 fine and that's it" deal would be on rather shaky legal ground.
The whole Met Partygate enquiry has been ridiculous. Secrecy when it suits, and public announcements about people not being charged. While conveniently ignoring the simple fact that the Met were watching/allowing these parties to take place, while standing outside. Coupled with public pronouncements that there was nothing to investigate. Surely this is a massive conflict of interest, and a separate force should have done the investigating?
Meanwhile, Sue Gray is in an invidious position. Her ultimate employer is Boris Johnson. She cannot investigate without appropriate permissions-which appear to have come at the cost of informing Boris along the way. Civil Servants may strive to be independent, but they take instructions from the Government of the day.
The Ian Dunt article above made many valid points.
I find the whole process of their determination to defend the indefensible, preposterous.
On the one hand ministers have trooped out to minimise the Boris involvement in his Birthday celebrations.
They all said that he wasnt there for long, was ambushed by cake, etc, etc.
Many pundits have said categorically that this was the least serious of the rule breaking events.
Yet this is the one that he was fined for.
On that basis how could he not get fined for the 6 others he attended?
There were invitations, they were told to bring their own booze, there were quizzes, karaoke, he made speeches, some were leaving parties, etc, etc.
The Met are incompetent, rather like Boris.
I think they are complicit.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-sue-gray-clash-121601276.html
The no argument bit I mean.
Always good to see your arguments.
@HAYSIE must be unwell.
Hope he recovers soon.
I cant explain such an out of character comment.
I must have blacked out.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/no-10-admits-pm-meeting-with-sue-gray-was-instigated-by-downing-street-uk-politics-live/ar-AAXBDn9?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=8cde9f4bc1e1481db15aab162036dd81
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/dominic-cummings-claims-partygate-photos-will-show-boris-johnson-obviously-lied-to-commons/ar-AAXBF5T?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=8cde9f4bc1e1481db15aab162036dd81
Definitely not a party.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61557064