If I said I couldnt argue with that, you are just going to take the pi55, so I am not.
I also think the lack of fines will provide serious questions for the police. The photos make all the difference. I think there are over 500 of them. They are likely to make the Boris claims of them not being parties. and no rules were broken, look very silly.
If I said I couldnt argue with that, you are just going to take the pi55, so I am not.
I also think the lack of fines will provide serious questions for the police. The photos make all the difference. I think there are over 500 of them. They are likely to make the Boris claims of them not being parties. and no rules were broken, look very silly.
Police watchdog urged to investigate Met’s partygate probe
Tory insider says leaked photos of Boris raising a glass in No10 on Dominic Cummings' last day 'have his fingerprints all over it' - amid claims PM suggested Sue Gray DROP plans to publish her report
Leaked images (right and main) show the Prime Minister apparently toasting his outgoing communications chief Lee Cain on November 13, 2020 – the same day Dominic Cummings departed Downing Street (inset) and a time when social gatherings were banned. Mr Johnson is said to have made a speech thanking Mr Cain and stayed at the event for ten to 15 minutes before going to his flat. Downing Street scrambled to defend the PM last night after the pictures emerged as sources claim he suggested Sue Gray should drop plans to publish her Partygate probe. One Tory source pointed the finger at Dominic Cummings, who has repeatedly called for 'regime change' in No 10. They said: 'This has got Dom's fingerprints all over it.'
a social event at which a group of people meet to talk, eat, drink, dance, etc., often in order to celebrate a special occasion: a birthday party a farewell party
If I said I couldnt argue with that, you are just going to take the pi55, so I am not.
I also think the lack of fines will provide serious questions for the police. The photos make all the difference. I think there are over 500 of them. They are likely to make the Boris claims of them not being parties. and no rules were broken, look very silly.
Met faces questions about credibility of Partygate inquiry after photos emerge
When it comes to the Downing Street Parties, the Met had officers allowing, for example, 100 people bringing in their own booze. People bringing in shed-loads of alcohol. Watching people partying in the garden. Being the doormen at Party Central.
The Met were aiding and abetting the offences. They are in no position to investigate. Because their own officers were suspects.
When it comes to the Downing Street Parties, the Met had officers allowing, for example, 100 people bringing in their own booze. People bringing in shed-loads of alcohol. Watching people partying in the garden. Being the doormen at Party Central.
The Met were aiding and abetting the offences. They are in no position to investigate. Because their own officers were suspects.
True. They face more ridicule if they are forced to provide an explanation.
Reports that the purpose of the Boris/Sue Gray meeting was to talk her out of publishing her report, adds more fuel to the fire.
When it comes to the Downing Street Parties, the Met had officers allowing, for example, 100 people bringing in their own booze. People bringing in shed-loads of alcohol. Watching people partying in the garden. Being the doormen at Party Central.
The Met were aiding and abetting the offences. They are in no position to investigate. Because their own officers were suspects.
There is also a massive question of fairness. How could you possibly reach a decision to fine some of those that attended each event, but not others. What criteria did they use? Rishi Sunak was fined for attending an event that he arrived at accidentally, apparently he was visiting number 10 on business, while a party was going on, didnt have a drink, and left a short time later, but still got fined. On that basis the total number of fines seem very low, as there were around 100 that attended the BYOB event. So on the basis that 18 events were investigated, a total of 126 fines seems very low. Surely if it was a party, everyone that attended should be fined.
When it comes to the Downing Street Parties, the Met had officers allowing, for example, 100 people bringing in their own booze. People bringing in shed-loads of alcohol. Watching people partying in the garden. Being the doormen at Party Central.
The Met were aiding and abetting the offences. They are in no position to investigate. Because their own officers were suspects.
True. They face more ridicule if they are forced to provide an explanation.
Reports that the purpose of the Boris/Sue Gray meeting was to talk her out of publishing her report, adds more fuel to the fire.
Its far from over.
For all that, I think Boris is likely to survive.
The likeliest way for him to be removed is via his own MPs. The key question (for me) is this:-
If they remove yet another democratically elected leader, which new leader would make them more likely to win the next election?
When it comes to the Downing Street Parties, the Met had officers allowing, for example, 100 people bringing in their own booze. People bringing in shed-loads of alcohol. Watching people partying in the garden. Being the doormen at Party Central.
The Met were aiding and abetting the offences. They are in no position to investigate. Because their own officers were suspects.
There is also a massive question of fairness. How could you possibly reach a decision to fine some of those that attended each event, but not others. What criteria did they use? Rishi Sunak was fined for attending an event that he arrived at accidentally, apparently he was visiting number 10 on business, while a party was going on, didnt have a drink, and left a short time later, but still got fined. On that basis the total number of fines seem very low, as there were around 100 that attended the BYOB event. So on the basis that 18 events were investigated, a total of 126 fines seems very low. Surely if it was a party, everyone that attended should be fined.
That raises an interesting point.
While the Met have not given great detail, what is clear is that they have believed that, unless there was some sort of premeditation to attend a Party, they would give the person the benefit of the doubt.
Which rather suggests that the Police believe Fishy Rishi was telling porkies.
It's almost as though the Met are doing pretty much everything they can to help the PM...note also the "premeditated" bit appears to be putting pressure on Durham police to fine Starmer...
When it comes to the Downing Street Parties, the Met had officers allowing, for example, 100 people bringing in their own booze. People bringing in shed-loads of alcohol. Watching people partying in the garden. Being the doormen at Party Central.
The Met were aiding and abetting the offences. They are in no position to investigate. Because their own officers were suspects.
There is also a massive question of fairness. How could you possibly reach a decision to fine some of those that attended each event, but not others. What criteria did they use? Rishi Sunak was fined for attending an event that he arrived at accidentally, apparently he was visiting number 10 on business, while a party was going on, didnt have a drink, and left a short time later, but still got fined. On that basis the total number of fines seem very low, as there were around 100 that attended the BYOB event. So on the basis that 18 events were investigated, a total of 126 fines seems very low. Surely if it was a party, everyone that attended should be fined.
That raises an interesting point.
While the Met have not given great detail, what is clear is that they have believed that, unless there was some sort of premeditation to attend a Party, they would give the person the benefit of the doubt.
Which rather suggests that the Police believe Fishy Rishi was telling porkies.
It's almost as though the Met are doing pretty much everything they can to help the PM...note also the "premeditated" bit appears to be putting pressure on Durham police to fine Starmer...
Just to add 1 further point to that.
There is a vacancy for next Commissioner of the Met. A post that is officially chosen by the Queen, but in reality is chosen by Boris/Priti.
If you want the job-exactly how impartial would you be?
When it comes to the Downing Street Parties, the Met had officers allowing, for example, 100 people bringing in their own booze. People bringing in shed-loads of alcohol. Watching people partying in the garden. Being the doormen at Party Central.
The Met were aiding and abetting the offences. They are in no position to investigate. Because their own officers were suspects.
There is also a massive question of fairness. How could you possibly reach a decision to fine some of those that attended each event, but not others. What criteria did they use? Rishi Sunak was fined for attending an event that he arrived at accidentally, apparently he was visiting number 10 on business, while a party was going on, didnt have a drink, and left a short time later, but still got fined. On that basis the total number of fines seem very low, as there were around 100 that attended the BYOB event. So on the basis that 18 events were investigated, a total of 126 fines seems very low. Surely if it was a party, everyone that attended should be fined.
That raises an interesting point.
While the Met have not given great detail, what is clear is that they have believed that, unless there was some sort of premeditation to attend a Party, they would give the person the benefit of the doubt.
Which rather suggests that the Police believe Fishy Rishi was telling porkies.
It's almost as though the Met are doing pretty much everything they can to help the PM...note also the "premeditated" bit appears to be putting pressure on Durham police to fine Starmer...
Just to add 1 further point to that.
There is a vacancy for next Commissioner of the Met. A post that is officially chosen by the Queen, but in reality is chosen by Boris/Priti.
If you want the job-exactly how impartial would you be?
When it comes to the Downing Street Parties, the Met had officers allowing, for example, 100 people bringing in their own booze. People bringing in shed-loads of alcohol. Watching people partying in the garden. Being the doormen at Party Central.
The Met were aiding and abetting the offences. They are in no position to investigate. Because their own officers were suspects.
There is also a massive question of fairness. How could you possibly reach a decision to fine some of those that attended each event, but not others. What criteria did they use? Rishi Sunak was fined for attending an event that he arrived at accidentally, apparently he was visiting number 10 on business, while a party was going on, didnt have a drink, and left a short time later, but still got fined. On that basis the total number of fines seem very low, as there were around 100 that attended the BYOB event. So on the basis that 18 events were investigated, a total of 126 fines seems very low. Surely if it was a party, everyone that attended should be fined.
That raises an interesting point.
While the Met have not given great detail, what is clear is that they have believed that, unless there was some sort of premeditation to attend a Party, they would give the person the benefit of the doubt.
Which rather suggests that the Police believe Fishy Rishi was telling porkies.
It's almost as though the Met are doing pretty much everything they can to help the PM...note also the "premeditated" bit appears to be putting pressure on Durham police to fine Starmer...
To my knowledge their investigation has consisted of questionnaires alone. Not really an intense interrogation. If anyone cracked while completing a questionnaire they deserve what they get. I think you would struggle to describe their investigation as independent. The content of the Sue Gray report may make them look very silly.
When it comes to the Downing Street Parties, the Met had officers allowing, for example, 100 people bringing in their own booze. People bringing in shed-loads of alcohol. Watching people partying in the garden. Being the doormen at Party Central.
The Met were aiding and abetting the offences. They are in no position to investigate. Because their own officers were suspects.
True. They face more ridicule if they are forced to provide an explanation.
Reports that the purpose of the Boris/Sue Gray meeting was to talk her out of publishing her report, adds more fuel to the fire.
Its far from over.
For all that, I think Boris is likely to survive.
The likeliest way for him to be removed is via his own MPs. The key question (for me) is this:-
If they remove yet another democratically elected leader, which new leader would make them more likely to win the next election?
Right now, I think the answer is no-one.
I would agree there is no standout candidate to replace him. I think his survival will depend on how bad the Sue Gray report looks.
Comments
The photos make all the difference.
I think there are over 500 of them.
They are likely to make the Boris claims of them not being parties. and no rules were broken, look very silly.
126: Fixed penalty noticed (FPNs) issued by Scotland Yard detectives over Partygate lawbreaking
83: Total number of politicians (including Boris Johnson and wife Carrie) and staff who shared those fines - 35 men and 48 women
50: Value of each fine (if done within two weeks - £100 thereafter)
1: Fines received and paid each by Mr Johnson, Carrie and Chancellor Rishi Sunak
10: Minutes that Mr Johnson claims to have spent at the birthday bash in the Cabinet Room
460,000: Cost in pounds of Operation Hillman, Scotland Yard's five month investigation into Partygate
115: Days which the investigation lasted between January 25 and May 19
8: Events which breached lockdown laws, resulting in the fines being handed out by police (from a total of 12 investigated)
16: Number of events on 12 different dates in 2020 and 2021 that Sue Gray's report covers
510: Photographs and CCTV images of events inside Downing Street used by police in their investigation
204: Questionnaires handed to political figures including the PM about their actions
100: Employees invited to BYOB (Bring Your Own Booze) party in No10 garden in May 2020
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/police-watchdog-urged-investigate-met-180219439.html
Leaked images (right and main) show the Prime Minister apparently toasting his outgoing communications chief Lee Cain on November 13, 2020 – the same day Dominic Cummings departed Downing Street (inset) and a time when social gatherings were banned. Mr Johnson is said to have made a speech thanking Mr Cain and stayed at the event for ten to 15 minutes before going to his flat. Downing Street scrambled to defend the PM last night after the pictures emerged as sources claim he suggested Sue Gray should drop plans to publish her Partygate probe. One Tory source pointed the finger at Dominic Cummings, who has repeatedly called for 'regime change' in No 10. They said: 'This has got Dom's fingerprints all over it.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10847039/Leaked-pictures-Boris-Johnson-raising-glass-advisers-day.html
a social event at which a group of people meet to talk, eat, drink, dance, etc., often in order to celebrate a special occasion:
a birthday party
a farewell party
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/met-faces-questions-about-credibility-of-partygate-inquiry-after-photos-emerge/ar-AAXDSWm?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=80957f5e3b9d44929e78850b7c93cecf#image=1
When it comes to the Downing Street Parties, the Met had officers allowing, for example, 100 people bringing in their own booze. People bringing in shed-loads of alcohol. Watching people partying in the garden. Being the doormen at Party Central.
The Met were aiding and abetting the offences. They are in no position to investigate. Because their own officers were suspects.
They face more ridicule if they are forced to provide an explanation.
Reports that the purpose of the Boris/Sue Gray meeting was to talk her out of publishing her report, adds more fuel to the fire.
Its far from over.
How could you possibly reach a decision to fine some of those that attended each event, but not others.
What criteria did they use?
Rishi Sunak was fined for attending an event that he arrived at accidentally, apparently he was visiting number 10 on business, while a party was going on, didnt have a drink, and left a short time later, but still got fined.
On that basis the total number of fines seem very low, as there were around 100 that attended the BYOB event.
So on the basis that 18 events were investigated, a total of 126 fines seems very low.
Surely if it was a party, everyone that attended should be fined.
The likeliest way for him to be removed is via his own MPs. The key question (for me) is this:-
If they remove yet another democratically elected leader, which new leader would make them more likely to win the next election?
Right now, I think the answer is no-one.
While the Met have not given great detail, what is clear is that they have believed that, unless there was some sort of premeditation to attend a Party, they would give the person the benefit of the doubt.
Which rather suggests that the Police believe Fishy Rishi was telling porkies.
It's almost as though the Met are doing pretty much everything they can to help the PM...note also the "premeditated" bit appears to be putting pressure on Durham police to fine Starmer...
There is a vacancy for next Commissioner of the Met.
A post that is officially chosen by the Queen, but in reality is chosen by Boris/Priti.
If you want the job-exactly how impartial would you be?
Not really an intense interrogation.
If anyone cracked while completing a questionnaire they deserve what they get.
I think you would struggle to describe their investigation as independent.
The content of the Sue Gray report may make them look very silly.
I think his survival will depend on how bad the Sue Gray report looks.