Scrutable

lpm wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 2:30 pm 12 parties looked at.

8 now handed to police, 4 not being looked at by police.

Correction. It's actually 16 parties on 12 dates.

Having more than one party on a date is quite revealing.

So 12 parties under police investigation, 4 not. The 12 includes the "Hooray we fired Dominic Cummings" party in Boris's flat.

"Witness statements vary as to just which or how many attendees were involved in the Liz Truss photo arse copying episode(s). We do however, at the present juncture, not anticipate further closer investigation of the Betty Boop tattoo upon the left cheek, other than to suggest it could do with some recolouring."

lpm wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 2:45 pm

lpm wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 2:30 pm 12 parties looked at.

8 now handed to police, 4 not being looked at by police.

Correction. It's actually 16 parties on 12 dates.

Having more than one party on a date is quite revealing.

So 12 parties under police investigation, 4 not. The 12 includes the "Hooray we fired Dominic Cummings" party in Boris's flat.

Conclusion - 12 parties being investigated by the Met, so not being commented on. Therefore not appropriate to comment on the other four, as it would "be a detriment to the overall balance of the findings."


https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ons-update


Well, I'm so glad we've got that all sorted

discovolante wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 2:41 pm

IvanV wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 1:33 pm

discovolante wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:26 am
It's been around since 1994, which is pretty modern but a fair bit more than ten years ago.

It was a 1994 Act that required the code to come into existence. That is the only significance of 1994. It is not a code that reflects the law as it was in 1994. It is a code that has been regularly updated to reflects changes in laws and attitudes. That 2019 version you point us to has just had an update to take account of transgender menstruation, a matter that was far from people's minds in 1994.

And one of the biggest things that changed since 1994 is the limitation of the right to silence. The fact that the limitation is found in a code that says it is a code under a 1994 Act does not mean that is how it was in 1994. It wasn't.

You seem to be confusing the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which required the code to come into existence (see Part VI), with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which limited the right to silence - see for e.g. section 34 - I've linked to the version that was in force as of 1995 (which was when the 1994 Act came into force, sorry bit of a mistake there as it received royal assent in 1994 but looks like it wasn't in force until 1995). The 1984 Code of Practice would have been updated to reflect the legislation.

If I've overlooked anything that says that setion 34 (and other relevant sections) weren't actually in force until some time after 1995 then I'd be happy to be corrected.

Why study law when you can just get explained to on a forum eh

"I get it and I will fix it"

Reviews of guidance for civil servants is total self-serving deflectionary BS... the failure in this case was from the top...

Breaking: Boris Johnson "sorry" for being found out.

And he's brought up the "Keir Starmer didn't prosecute Saville" canard. Can't be much left at the bottom of his barrel.

Fair play to Ian Blackford. Good point, well made. [/lpm]

discovolante wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 2:41 pm You seem to be confusing the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which required the code to come into existence (see Part VI), with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which limited the right to silence - see for e.g. section 34 - I've linked to the version that was in force as of 1995 (which was when the 1994 Act came into force, sorry bit of a mistake there as it received royal assent in 1994 but looks like it wasn't in force until 1995). The 1984 Code of Practice would have been updated to reflect the legislation.

If I've overlooked anything that says that setion 34 (and other relevant sections) weren't actually in force until some time after 1995 then I'd be happy to be corrected.

My apologies, you are perfectly correct, the limitation on the right to silence came in under John Major in 1994. There were further disadvantages to suspects that came in under Cameron, but not that one.

Doesn't alter my confusion over why The Secret Barrister wrote a book just last year saying that suspects were reasonable in wanting to wait and see the evidence against them before replying to questions, and has now seemingly accepted the opposite.

Not a good performance by BoJo - seems to be getting a lot of stick from his own benches (who need to cover their own arse's with their constituents). I'd be surprised if the threshold of letters doesn't get reached this week.

IvanV wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 4:24 pm Doesn't alter my confusion over why The Secret Barrister wrote a book just last year saying that suspects were reasonable in wanting to wait and see the evidence against them before replying to questions, and has now seemingly accepted the opposite.

Is the Secret Barrister not talking about two different things? I have not read the book and might be missing your point, but SB seems to be talking about when it's reasonable for a suspect to keep their mouth shut in the book (going off of what you wrote), and when it's reasonable for the PoPo to keep theirs shut in the blog.

TopBadger wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 4:34 pm Not a good performance by BoJo - seems to be getting a lot of stick from his own benches (who need to cover their own arse's with their constituents). I'd be surprised if the threshold of letters doesn't get reached this week.

I do hope so, but I bet there'll be a lot of talk about waiting for the full report instead.

I think more Tory MPs were critical, sometimes brutally sometimes subtly, than Johnson was expecting. He was smirking at the start. He wasn’t smirking at the end.

True. I also don't think he's got anywhere to go if the police confirm he was at the party on 13th November when he told the House he wasn't. I'm guessing his hope is we'll be at war by then

monkey wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 4:49 pm Is the Secret Barrister not talking about two different things? I have not read the book and might be missing your point, but SB seems to be talking about when it's reasonable for a suspect to keep their mouth shut in the book (going off of what you wrote), and when it's reasonable for the PoPo to keep theirs shut in the blog.

Yes, and that has occurred to me. The concept of equality before the law makes it difficult to argue for one rule for them and another rule for the others. But maybe it's a sufficiently unique situation one can argue from a position of expedience.

Woodchopper wrote: Sun Jan 30, 2022 7:11 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.

The Secret Barrister offers a more nuanced version of this explanation and concludes that: "As things stand, there are potentially valid reasons for the Met’s stance."

Met statement from the Guardian live blog:

The reason this request is necessary is that in any investigation officers seek independent accounts from each individual, as free from the influence of others’ recollections as possible.

Officers would also seek to avoid providing details of their investigation in advance to those they contact, so that individuals are not tempted to shape their accounts according to what is in the public domain.

Similar to the Secret Barrister blog, the police don’t want suspects to know exactly what is known about them.

Grumble wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 4:51 pm I think more Tory MPs were critical, sometimes brutally sometimes subtly, than Johnson was expecting. He was smirking at the start. He wasn’t smirking at the end.

Starmer was stunningly good.

The Scottish guy was funny and made a good contrast.

Johnson couldn't keep up with his "I'm sorry" routine for more than a few seconds.

The parts that will play on the news will be bad for Johnson - mainly because May's dagger in the back was so good.

Opti wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 4:10 pm Fair play to Ian Blackford. Good point, well made. [/lpm]

I found myself surprised that more MP's didn't latch onto this line of attack.

Where a member unintentionally makes a misleading statement to the house, they have the opportunity to correct the record. BoJo has made no such correction even though it's plainly obvious that what he previously said was untrue - the only rational conclusion to this behavior is that he is intentionally misleading the house. Sadly the rules of the house punish the member who comments on the behavior rather than the member who commits it.

TopBadger wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 5:24 pm

Opti wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 4:10 pm Fair play to Ian Blackford. Good point, well made. [/lpm]

I found myself surprised that more MP's didn't latch onto this line of attack.

Where a member unintentionally makes a misleading statement to the house, they have the opportunity to correct the record. BoJo has made no such correction even though it's plainly obvious that what he previously said was untrue - the only rational conclusion to this behavior is that he is intentionally misleading the house. Sadly the rules of the house punish the member who comments on the behavior rather than the member who commits it.

It’s a bizarre rule based on convention rather than any kind of logic.

Grumble wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 5:30 pm

TopBadger wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 5:24 pm

Opti wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 4:10 pm Fair play to Ian Blackford. Good point, well made. [/lpm]

I found myself surprised that more MP's didn't latch onto this line of attack.

Where a member unintentionally makes a misleading statement to the house, they have the opportunity to correct the record. BoJo has made no such correction even though it's plainly obvious that what he previously said was untrue - the only rational conclusion to this behavior is that he is intentionally misleading the house. Sadly the rules of the house punish the member who comments on the behavior rather than the member who commits it.

It’s a bizarre rule based on convention rather than any kind of logic.

So while you can't call out a pathological liar, who has been sacked twice for lying, even when you've caught him out lying to the House, again, it is apparently OK to baselessly accuse other MPs of being Class A drug-users.

With the added irony that AFAIK the only members of the HoC who have ever confessed to using Class A drugs are a "Michael Gove" and one ... *check notes" ... "B. Johnson", whoever that is?

I think they've brought in the script writers from USA 2019-2020. Nail biting stuff.

Johnson sounding like a stuck record again. I love everyone calling him to resign (including his own side) until his stooge stands up.

Hoyle looked like Blackford spat on his Mam when he didn't retract his comments. I mean, dude, chill. It's a lexicological infraction, not a party at someone's funeral. Which Johnson pretty much Literally Did. Lindsay, mate, you're projecting.

I didn't expect May to be quite so brutal, given her own poor showing in office and Labour's lady backbencher spoke beautifully.

All in all, I hope Johnson's peewee hurts.

IvanV wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 4:24 pm

discovolante wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 2:41 pm You seem to be confusing the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which required the code to come into existence (see Part VI), with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which limited the right to silence - see for e.g. section 34 - I've linked to the version that was in force as of 1995 (which was when the 1994 Act came into force, sorry bit of a mistake there as it received royal assent in 1994 but looks like it wasn't in force until 1995). The 1984 Code of Practice would have been updated to reflect the legislation.

If I've overlooked anything that says that setion 34 (and other relevant sections) weren't actually in force until some time after 1995 then I'd be happy to be corrected.

My apologies, you are perfectly correct, the limitation on the right to silence came in under John Major in 1994. There were further disadvantages to suspects that came in under Cameron, but not that one.

Doesn't alter my confusion over why The Secret Barrister wrote a book just last year saying that suspects were reasonable in wanting to wait and see the evidence against them before replying to questions, and has now seemingly accepted the opposite.

I haven't read Fake Law, but that does seem to go back to my original point here: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2985&p=112144#p112094

There is certain information the police have to provide. There might be situations where the suspect would be able to exercise their right to silence with minimal risk of an adverse inference being drawn, because for e.g. it is for the prosecution to prove their case, so unless the suspect has enough information to believe the prosecution may be able to do that on the evidence they have, it could be entirely reasonable for them not to answer questions in interview.* I don't think SB's blog says anything about suspects being required to answer questions, and is just focusing on the information the police may or may not want to be available to potential suspects before their investigation is concluded.



*this is obviously not official legal advice, get a solicitor if you're about to be interviewed by the police

nezumi wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:07 pm
Hoyle looked like Blackford spat on his Mam when he didn't retract his comments. I mean, dude, chill. It's a lexicological infraction, not a party at someone's funeral. Which Johnson pretty much Literally Did. Lindsay, mate, you're projecting.

I thought Hoyle was pretty good. His comments and manner seemed to say "I know he's a lying sack of sh.t, you know he's a lying sack of sh.t, but we have to at least pretend." He certainly didn't seem to be making any effort to help Johnson.

He's let a lot of Johnson is a liar comments go recently. So long as MPs phrase it as an indirect quote from a constituent.

WFJ wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:13 pm

nezumi wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:07 pm
Hoyle looked like Blackford spat on his Mam when he didn't retract his comments. I mean, dude, chill. It's a lexicological infraction, not a party at someone's funeral. Which Johnson pretty much Literally Did. Lindsay, mate, you're projecting.

I thought Hoyle was pretty good. His comments and manner seemed to say "I know he's a lying sack of sh.t, you know he's a lying sack of sh.t, but we have to at least pretend." He certainly didn't seem to be making any effort to help Johnson.

He's let a lot of Johnson is a liar comments go recently. So long as MPs phrase it as an indirect quote from a constituent.

Leaving aside the current unpleasantness, "Johnson is a liar" is a matter of public record, so should be allowed

Yeah you're right, I watched it a second time and you can clearly hear the plea to just play the stupid game. Fair play to Blackford though, that was just lovely.

I really can't tell from Johnson's expression what he's thinking without my glasses so I may have to watch it again to pick that up. People accuse him of laughing but my short-sightedness makes it look more like despair (which would please me more than I care to admit) but he does just keep on getting up and brazening it out like several people, including people on his own side are telling him to seriously just piss off.

I can't say I've ever heard the expression "full throated support". It sounds a bit pervy if you ask me. Who is that bloke? 30 years supporting Johnson? He must be a reprehensible c.nt if he's only withdrawing support now.

Also, who is the smarmy bloke with the red tie that clearly has no moral compass?