2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
-
- Fuzzable
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
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)
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
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
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.
If there's hard evidence of Class As someone really f.cked up.
Never break more than one law at a time, kids.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
Yes, but you don't consider yourself to be above petty rules, unlike the Titans of Cummings, Johnson, and Gove.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:58 pmI'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.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
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.
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.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
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
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
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).IvanV wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:50 amI 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.
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.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
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.tom p wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:01 pmIt'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).IvanV wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:50 amI 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.
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.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
- Little waster
- After Pie
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
- Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
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.
*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.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
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.Little waster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 4:04 pmI 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.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
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.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
Doesn't really matter seeings as the Met are clearly working overtime to protect Boris. This redacted Grey report nonsense is a new low.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
Lol, been up 3 hours - not really going viral
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
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.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
No-one has been arrested, which is a key point here.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 3:19 amSenior 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.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
Its all a delay tactic... more time gives more chance of this being superseded by Russia.
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
I quoted this guy before.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 3:19 amSenior 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.
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
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
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.
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
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8317
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
“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?
What the literal f.ck?
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
- Little waster
- After Pie
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
- Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
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.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?
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.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
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.
Meanwhile BoJo is going to goad Putin into getting on with it.
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
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.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
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.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 5:09 pmWell, 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.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
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.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 3:19 amSenior 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.
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.
Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!
It also includes the former Chief Crown Prosecutor for NW England.IvanV wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 7:02 pmI 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.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 3:19 amSenior 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.
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.
I hope he knows how police investigations work
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation