Scrutable

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:58 pm

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.

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

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

IvanV wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:50 am

tom p wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:16 am

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.

tom p wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:01 pm

IvanV wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:50 am

tom p wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:16 am

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.

Little waster wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 4:04 pm

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.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:58 pm

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

plodder wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:10 pm

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

jimbob wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:53 am

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

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 29, 2022 3:19 am

jimbob wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:53 am

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.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 29, 2022 3:19 am

jimbob wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:53 am

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.

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

shpalman wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 29, 2022 11:00 am

“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?

bmforre wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:49 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:58 pm

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.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 29, 2022 5:09 pm

bmforre wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:49 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:58 pm

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.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 29, 2022 3:19 am

jimbob wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:53 am

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.

IvanV wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 29, 2022 7:02 pm

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 29, 2022 3:19 am

jimbob wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:53 am

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.