2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

[purplehaze]

I reckon there's an extra element other than alcohol being used. That's serious.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/of ... o-another/

It could be a criminal law matter. Whether it gets to trial by jury is a matter for discussion.

https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/sho ... al-by-jury

Or it's a delay tactic, hopefully by then the economy will upturn, people will feel happy and Covid will no longer be a concern. And who really wants to go over those awful terrible two years of the pandemic (when we partied on behalf of the nation)

[Bird on a Fire]

I'm sure the place is full of coke, but users tend to be less conspicuous about it than boozers, especially at "work".

If there's hard evidence of Class As someone really f.cked up.

Never break more than one law at a time, kids.

[jimbob]

I'm sure the place is full of coke, but users tend to be less conspicuous about it than boozers, especially at "work".

If there's hard evidence of Class As someone really f.cked up.

Never break more than one law at a time, kids.

Yes, but you don't consider yourself to be above petty rules, unlike the Titans of Cummings, Johnson, and Gove.

[Bird on a Fire]

True dat.

It'll make the government's much vaunted crackdown (NPI) on middle-class druggies a lot funnier if they get caught.

It's always projection with these right-wing types.

[jimbob]

nazir afzal
@nazirafzal
Normal
12%
This is absolute nonsense from the Met Police
A purely factual report by Sue Gray cannot possibly prejudice a police investigation
They just have to follow the evidence, of which the report will be a part

https://twitter.com/nazirafzal/status/1 ... K3BitUCqjg

Replying to
@nazirafzal
I have had a lot of “requests” in my lifetime & I only sing along when it might be appreciated
The police can “request” whatever they like but we don’t have to sing along
It has no legal force
I “requested” they investigate ages ago and they ignored me too

[tom p]

I would also point you to 2.60 & 2.61...

I think the reason that several of us read this and thought it was nowhere near misconduct was in fact precisely sections like 2.58ff (wilful misconduct, which includes your 2.60-61) and also 2.67ff (abuse of public trust). These stress the necessity for the seriousness of the misconduct and the seriousness of the consequences. I also remain far from convinced on sections like 2.43ff (a public officer acting as such), precisely because it makes clear that it is such a difficult legal point. I think it would be difficult to show he was "acting as such" when he attended the party, precisely when you consider those cited cases about various public servants having sex with people during their working hours, some guilty, some not guilty. The latter because they were they not "acting as such". (And indeed one of the points of this document is to argue for putting it on a statutory basis, rather than the current common law position, precisely so that such points can be better clarified in statute.)

You naturally want him to be done for it, and so you have a natural instinct to want to read this document as support for that likelihood. But objectively this document makes it pretty clear that would be a big stretch.

Sorry I sloppily reported Johnson being minister rather than MP on that prior case.

It's certainly true that I'm reading it through get-the-bastard goggles; however I also think that it would be almost impossible to argue that the PM of the UK being in the offices of 10 Downing Street, his primary place of work, surrounded by his minions, was not a public officer acting as such. Indeed, he has disingenuously claimed that he thought at least one of the parties was a work event (2.43ff). He has also said that he should have stopped the gathering (in which case his failure to so do is misconduct through nonfeasance, which is also an indictable offence).
Given that you were all obliged to avoid such gatherings, how is him and his minions having them not a breach of public trust? Since they were doing so in a manner likely to spread a fatal respiratory illness, not only amongst themselves (the government of the country, lest we forget - take them down and who will screw the paupers run things during the pandemic?), but amongst the other people on the tube when they eventually leave their piss-up, how are the (potential) consequences not serious? Do you really think that if it was known at the time that those bastards were on the lash that the rest of the country would have agreed to follow the rules? If britain has to go back into lockdown next month, how well do you think it will be observed now?

I would agree that anything he does in the apartment at number 11 is not in his professional capacity (unless he's working from the apartment and committing misconduct via some form of telecommunication), equally, had he got his cock out in the middle of peppa pig world, or even molested one of the park workers dressed as peppa pig, that too wouldn't be misconduct in public office, since he was there with his family. If he does something unspeakable in the committee room hosting the 1922 committee or in CCHQ, that's a party political matter. But he wasn't in personal or a political mode, he was at work. When the boss is in the office, he's on duty. When the boss is the prime minister, he's in public office, he is serious and what he says and does matters.

[jimbob]

I would also point you to 2.60 & 2.61...

I think the reason that several of us read this and thought it was nowhere near misconduct was in fact precisely sections like 2.58ff (wilful misconduct, which includes your 2.60-61) and also 2.67ff (abuse of public trust). These stress the necessity for the seriousness of the misconduct and the seriousness of the consequences. I also remain far from convinced on sections like 2.43ff (a public officer acting as such), precisely because it makes clear that it is such a difficult legal point. I think it would be difficult to show he was "acting as such" when he attended the party, precisely when you consider those cited cases about various public servants having sex with people during their working hours, some guilty, some not guilty. The latter because they were they not "acting as such". (And indeed one of the points of this document is to argue for putting it on a statutory basis, rather than the current common law position, precisely so that such points can be better clarified in statute.)

You naturally want him to be done for it, and so you have a natural instinct to want to read this document as support for that likelihood. But objectively this document makes it pretty clear that would be a big stretch.

Sorry I sloppily reported Johnson being minister rather than MP on that prior case.

It's certainly true that I'm reading it through get-the-bastard goggles; however I also think that it would be almost impossible to argue that the PM of the UK being in the offices of 10 Downing Street, his primary place of work, surrounded by his minions, was not a public officer acting as such. Indeed, he has disingenuously claimed that he thought at least one of the parties was a work event (2.43ff). He has also said that he should have stopped the gathering (in which case his failure to so do is misconduct through nonfeasance, which is also an indictable offence).
Given that you were all obliged to avoid such gatherings, how is him and his minions having them not a breach of public trust? Since they were doing so in a manner likely to spread a fatal respiratory illness, not only amongst themselves (the government of the country, lest we forget - take them down and who will screw the paupers run things during the pandemic?), but amongst the other people on the tube when they eventually leave their piss-up, how are the (potential) consequences not serious? Do you really think that if it was known at the time that those bastards were on the lash that the rest of the country would have agreed to follow the rules? If britain has to go back into lockdown next month, how well do you think it will be observed now?

I would agree that anything he does in the apartment at number 11 is not in his professional capacity (unless he's working from the apartment and committing misconduct via some form of telecommunication), equally, had he got his cock out in the middle of peppa pig world, or even molested one of the park workers dressed as peppa pig, that too wouldn't be misconduct in public office, since he was there with his family. If he does something unspeakable in the committee room hosting the 1922 committee or in CCHQ, that's a party political matter. But he wasn't in personal or a political mode, he was at work. When the boss is in the office, he's on duty. When the boss is the prime minister, he's in public office, he is serious and what he says and does matters.

The threats to remove funding from constituencies whose MPs don't back Johnson, if proven, would look to be getting close to abuse of position, and possibly a more classic malfeasance in a public office.

[Little waster]

I wonder if, in theory*, this could be considered grounds for impeachment, given the special case of Johnson's criminality somehow managing to skirt the very edges of legality in terms of "misconduct in public office" yet his complete lack of honour meaning he refuses to voluntarily resign as convention would normally require.


*as it would be unlikely to ever pass in practice given an 80-seat majority and the Tory MPs complete abrogation of any concept of basic decency or public service.

[IvanV]

I wonder if, in theory*, this could be considered grounds for impeachment, given the special case of Johnson's criminality somehow managing to skirt the very edges of legality in terms of "misconduct in public office" yet his complete lack of honour meaning he refuses to voluntarily resign as convention would normally require.

The last impeachment in Britain was in 1805, relating to an allegation of misappropriation of funds. It resulted in an acquittal. That would be dealt with differently, and better, today. Impeachment has not been explicitly ended in Britain, but in practice it is obsolete. That's good. Having a party political court fails the separation of powers test, as does that other terrible US practice of party political selection of supreme court justices.

[bmforre]

Never break more than one law at a time, kids.

What do you estimate the applicable dis-guiltiness time* is, when you're allowed to break the next one?

*More generally, a study of political coherence times could be interesting.

[plodder]

Doesn't really matter seeings as the Met are clearly working overtime to protect Boris. This redacted Grey report nonsense is a new low.

[Gfamily]

Lol, been up 3 hours - not really going viral

massive response.jpg (83.69 KiB) Viewed 1710 times

[dyqik]

Doesn't really matter seeings as the Met are clearly working overtime to protect Boris. This redacted Grey report nonsense is a new low.

A certain Baz Javid, brother of Sajid, is a DAC at the Met.

[Millennie Al]

There is pushback by senior lawyers as to how a factual report could prejudice a police investigation.

Senior lawyers must not be familiar with investigation then. The way it works is that the police arrest a suspect and then ask them about the parties they attended. When the suspect denies being at a party, they say there is security camera footage. The suspect confesses and incriminates others. Later they may discover there was no security camera footage, a fact which they would have been aware of if they had read the full unredacted report.

[Grumble]

There is pushback by senior lawyers as to how a factual report could prejudice a police investigation.

Senior lawyers must not be familiar with investigation then. The way it works is that the police arrest a suspect and then ask them about the parties they attended. When the suspect denies being at a party, they say there is security camera footage. The suspect confesses and incriminates others. Later they may discover there was no security camera footage, a fact which they would have been aware of if they had read the full unredacted report.

No-one has been arrested, which is a key point here.

[TopBadger]

Its all a delay tactic... more time gives more chance of this being superseded by Russia.

[jimbob]

There is pushback by senior lawyers as to how a factual report could prejudice a police investigation.

Senior lawyers must not be familiar with investigation then. The way it works is that the police arrest a suspect and then ask them about the parties they attended. When the suspect denies being at a party, they say there is security camera footage. The suspect confesses and incriminates others. Later they may discover there was no security camera footage, a fact which they would have been aware of if they had read the full unredacted report.

I quoted this guy before.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazir_Afzal .

https://twitter.com/nazirafzal/status/1 ... 9408783370

If Met Police wanted to confuse further:
No suggestion investigating anything other than covid reg breaches-at most fines
No suggestion they fear contaminated evidence
Yet #SueGrayReport needs to be redacted to protect integrity of an investigation

Just ignore them & publish

[Sciolus]

It's entirely possible that Gray sticks the boot into the Met for allowing criminal behaviour under their noses. It's slightly possible that the Met are actually investigating themselves, which would justify redaction.

Let's remember that this week's shitshow is entirely the fault of the Met. Of course a police enquiry takes priority over any other inquiry, that's universal practice. This is happening because the Met refused to investigate until public outrage forced them to. If they had been arsed to investigate two months ago when everyone knew about it, instead of bleating "oh, it was all a terribly long time ago, it's ancient history now", or even nearly two years ago when it was actually happening in front of them, the Gray enquiry wouldn't have been started.

[shpalman]

“He’s the PM of a nuclear-armed state, operating in a Downing Street that at the time was [on] a war footing...”

What the literal f.ck?

[Little waster]

“He’s the PM of a nuclear-armed state, operating in a Downing Street that at the time was [on] a war footing...”

What the literal f.ck?

There's a story from the Korean War that on one occasion the Chinese were on the verge of over-running the British positions and a miscommunication meant no reinforcements or supplies were going to arrive.

As the ammunition began to run out the troops resorted to throwing tins of cheese at the Chinese in the hope they would mistake them for grenades and duck for cover, buying them a few more seconds, an act of complete desperation which could only ever delay the inevitable.

By the looks of it, Holloway has been presented with with half a box of Dairylea Triangles and been asked to do the best he can.

[TopBadger]

Beeb is saying she is going to get on and publish anyway... good.

Meanwhile BoJo is going to goad Putin into getting on with it.

[Bird on a Fire]

Never break more than one law at a time, kids.

What do you estimate the applicable dis-guiltiness time* is, when you're allowed to break the next one?

*More generally, a study of political coherence times could be interesting.

Well, generally it means don't do something low-stakes illegal that might attract attention if you're also doing something very illegal.

So if you're transporting a body, don't also break the speed limit. If you have a house full of stolen goods, keep up to date with the rent. And if you're bringing class A drugs into Downing Street, don't also have a huge pissup during a lockdown.

[dyqik]

Never break more than one law at a time, kids.

What do you estimate the applicable dis-guiltiness time* is, when you're allowed to break the next one?

*More generally, a study of political coherence times could be interesting.

Well, generally it means don't do something low-stakes illegal that might attract attention if you're also doing something very illegal.

So if you're transporting a body, don't also break the speed limit. If you have a house full of stolen goods, keep up to date with the rent. And if you're bringing class A drugs into Downing Street, don't also have a huge pissup during a lockdown.

Another guideline is to keep them separate enough that they can't bring both charges at the same trial, because that gives the jury the chance to convict you on the lesser charge that maybe wouldn't even usually be prosecuted, if the case on the greater charge isn't so great.

[IvanV]

There is pushback by senior lawyers as to how a factual report could prejudice a police investigation.

Senior lawyers must not be familiar with investigation then. The way it works is that the police arrest a suspect and then ask them about the parties they attended. When the suspect denies being at a party, they say there is security camera footage. The suspect confesses and incriminates others. Later they may discover there was no security camera footage, a fact which they would have been aware of if they had read the full unredacted report.

I confess I'm not quite sure whether you are suggesting whether "the way it works" is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. I am strongly of the latter view.

The recent reduction of the right to silence, that recitation about how it is important to say "things you will later rely on in court" now, rather than later when you know the evidence against you, with the implication that saying them then makes them less valid, is a related dirty trick.

It is all predicated on this myth the authoritarians like to present that the accused get an unfairly good deal. Whereas the reality is that the whole system is heavily tipped in the prosecution's favour. They are the ones with the resources and manpower and powers of investigation to research their side of the case, and the practical ability to fail to investigate matters that might demonstrate something else. They mostly can't even afford a decent defence either. And you'll often be heavily out of pocket if you are found not guilty (but that's all right because there's no smoke without fire). The recent massive reduction of legal aid (on an entirely spurious but much repeated claim that our system was over-generous) has only made that worse.

[jimbob]

There is pushback by senior lawyers as to how a factual report could prejudice a police investigation.

Senior lawyers must not be familiar with investigation then. The way it works is that the police arrest a suspect and then ask them about the parties they attended. When the suspect denies being at a party, they say there is security camera footage. The suspect confesses and incriminates others. Later they may discover there was no security camera footage, a fact which they would have been aware of if they had read the full unredacted report.

I confess I'm not quite sure whether you are suggesting whether "the way it works" is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. I am strongly of the latter view.

The recent reduction of the right to silence, that recitation about how it is important to say "things you will later rely on in court" now, rather than later when you know the evidence against you, with the implication that saying them then makes them less valid, is a related dirty trick.

It is all predicated on this myth the authoritarians like to present that the accused get an unfairly good deal. Whereas the reality is that the whole system is hea⁹vily tipped in the prosecution's favour. They are the ones with the resources and manpower and powers of investigation to research their side of the case, and the practical ability to fail to investigate matters that might demonstrate something else. They mostly can't even afford a decent defence either. And you'll often be heavily out of pocket if you are found not guilty (but that's all right because there's no smoke without fire). The recent massive reduction of legal aid (on an entirely spurious but much repeated claim that our system was over-generous) has only made that worse.

It also includes the former Chief Crown Prosecutor for NW England.

I hope he knows how police investigations work