No 10 rule breaking gatherings during 2020.

[96tommy]

Met Police have confirmed they are not investigating anymore serious offences other than those that would receive penalty charges so that makes more speculation that this is a cover up. They were more than happy with the report being released the other day..... suspicious

 

[Philip]

Perverting the course of justice isn't a serious crime?

Not in this context no. If it was to try and conceal a serious crime then it is, but this isn't the case here.

 

[brad465]

Anyone complaining that this has gone on long enough, and/or we should be focusing on more important issues, should vent their grievances towards the Met, Johnson and/or anyone else who is hindering the release of this report. Their actions are making more headlines out of it, and delaying the release of the report is also prolonging it. Depending on what is in the report, releasing it and then actioning it accordingly, even if certain actions are not enough, is more likely to put an end to this saga than what's going on right now.

 

[bramling]

Anyone complaining that this has gone on long enough, and/or we should be focusing on more important issues, should vent their grievances towards the Met, Johnson and/or anyone else who is hindering the release of this report. Their actions are making more headlines out of it, and delaying the release of the report is also prolonging it. Depending on what is in the report, releasing it and then actioning it accordingly, even if certain actions are not enough, is more likely to put an end to this saga than what's going on right now.

Depends if Johnson is banking on anything bad being buried by other events, in particular Ukraine.

It would be very typical of Johnson for us to get a "a couple of my staff have resigned, matter closed, now let's concentrate on the real stuff" solution.

One way or other, I can't really see the police involvement amounting to much, public institutions rarely dish dirt on fellow public institutions. It also sidesteps the bigger issue, which is that Johnson appears to have lied, including to parliament.

 

[greyman42]

We need to remember that Cressida Dick owes Johnson/Patel a favour or two.
Not that i care, i hope they enjoyed their parties.

 

[Nicks]

In my past life (over 20 years ago!) I used to go to meetings in No10 every month and have attended one (drinks) party inside the building and one in the garden. The culture may have changed but at that level of government it is lot more informal than you might expect. The police, and messengers etc. were very friendly and they knew everything that went on in there. Obviously this was all pre-Covid but the hours could be extremely long there and, in my case, as I worked in a Cabinet Minister's Private office, I spent so much time in that job that my friends or family hardly saw me and the informality helped with an extreme work load and kept us from cracking up from the pressure.

 

[brad465]

Depends if Johnson is banking on anything bad being buried by other events, in particular Ukraine.

It would be very typical of Johnson for us to get a "a couple of my staff have resigned, matter closed, now let's concentrate on the real stuff" solution.

One way or other, I can't really see the police involvement amounting to much, public institutions rarely dish dirt on fellow public institutions. It also sidesteps the bigger issue, which is that Johnson appears to have lied, including to parliament.

When a leader is betting on someone else starting a war to save their own skin, that's when you know they shouldn't be where they are. I expect most of what you say here will happen, while as for Johnson lying to Parliament, he has exploited the lack of constitution to get through his premiership: if Parliament were like a court of law, Johnson would have committed perjury on day 1. We can no longer rely on goodwill/trust amongst politicians/MPs, actually having a fixed constitution/set of laws in place that legally binds them to behave properly in Parliament is long overdue.

 

[greyman42]

When a leader is betting on someone else starting a war to save their own skin, that's when you know they shouldn't be where they are.

We don't know that he is betting on someone to start a war.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Met Police have confirmed they are not investigating anymore serious offences other than those that would receive penalty charges so that makes more speculation that this is a cover up. They were more than happy with the report being released the other day..... suspicious

I thought the met suddenly deciding to investigate was a coverup from day 1. An investigation would cause the Gray report to be delayed, therefore allowing Boris and co to have a greater chance of finding out the contents of the report and act accordingly, possibly as a way of allowing Boris to resign if it's really damning before it's released and rendering the report useless.

We don't know that he is betting on someone to start a war.

The Ukraine crisis could be a very good get of jail free card.

 

[island]

This is what I wondered. If they were going to issue fixed penalty notices, there wouldn't need to be much of an investigation. One assumes those involved would be keen to accept in order to avoid further action.

As far as I know, the law entitling them to issue fixed penalty notices has expired, which may complicate things.

 

[87 027]

Not in this context no. If it was to try and conceal a serious crime then it is, but this isn't the case here.

Speeding did for a former cabinet minister - Chris Huhne. Jailed for perverting the course of justice for an event 10 years previously (wife accepted the points on her licence instead of him)

 

[brad465]

We don't know that he is betting on someone to start a war.

Whether he is betting on it or not is debatable I agree, however some of the MPs trying to defend Johnson have used the crisis in Ukraine as a reason to stick with him.

 

[Meole]

Speeding did for a former cabinet minister - Chris Huhne. Jailed for perverting the course of justice for an event 10 years previously (wife accepted the points on her licence instead of him)

It wasn't the speeding, it was the perjury surely ?
This is not comparable in anyway and has not been kicked in to the long grass and is effectively over as an issue.

 

[87 027]

It wasn't the speeding, it was the perjury surely ?

Yes, quite. I was responding to the suggestion that lying about a minor offence is less of a problem than lying about a more serious offence with an example whereby a cabinet minister was jailed for lying about a speeding offence which one might consider to be towards the more minor end of the spectrum

This is not comparable in anyway and has not been kicked in to the long grass and is effectively over as an issue.

Opinions will vary depending on how you view the bigger political picture vs. placing store by the principles of the Ministerial Code (https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/ministerial-code)

 

[jon0844]

I thought the met suddenly deciding to investigate was a coverup from day 1. An investigation would cause the Gray report to be delayed, therefore allowing Boris and co to have a greater chance of finding out the contents of the report and act accordingly, possibly as a way of allowing Boris to resign if it's really damning before it's released and rendering the report useless.

I think it's far more likely it allows Boris a stay of execution for potentially another month or two (or three). As I've said before, and plenty of other people have, it isn't the best time to replace him. So many bad things ahead, that the longer he can survive the better (but, for sure, he won't last the year).

Of course they might not be able to control things that well if more info is fed to the media in the coming days/weeks.

 

[brad465]

There are voices around saying they hope someone leaks the report before release and/or in an unredacted form. My current thinking is maybe there is someone who plans to leak this report unredacted, but they're waiting for an ideal opportunity. I think the most damaging means of leaking is for a heavily redacted report to be formally published as planned, but then the unredacted version be leaked soon after, so the public get to see what they tried to cover up.

That said, given the repercussions for a hypothetical leaker, and potentially very few suspects to have handled the report (thus easy to find out who did it), someone leaking it would have to have a "I've got nothing to lose" attitude to do it.

 

[87 027]

The Spectator suggests a more prosaic explanation for the delay in releasing details, simply that whilst the police investigation is ongoing you wouldn't want witnesses to see in detail what other witnesses have said on the record, and that this is fairly normal protocol in legal situations

 

[david1212]

So, Boris said he'd resign if the report showed he'd broken any laws/rules.

Now the report has to be censored to protect the police investigations, and further on from that it seems if they just pay a fixed penalty then there will be no record made and the problems go away. I assume they'll all just cough up and that'll be that..

A fixed penalty does not necessarily also mean some form of criminal record however for one to be issued a law / regulation / rule as been broken. Would any of the Covid gathering fines issued be a criminal record ?
On this basis though if the report is thorough and correct from what is already in the public domain for Boris to keep to this statement he will have to resign. The detail as I see is not if he should be fined but how many fines. Likewise for numerous others.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I should note that the hashtag 'DickOut' is/was trending on twitter today

 

[DerekC]

I really don't understand why the Met are behaving the way they are, unless some political strings are being pulled. In rail (and other) accident investigations another public body (RAIB) investigates and publishes the facts, after which the police decide whether any prosecutions are justified. That's following the disastrous period when the police did lead on investigations, which delayed the process by months and years and made getting at the facts much more difficult. Why doesn't the same apply here? After all, the prosecutions after an accident can go up as far as manslaughter, whereas here we are just talking about fines. The public interest is very strongly in favour of publication of the Gray Report in full, and the police are supposed to take the public interest into account in their decisions.

 

[brad465]

I should note that the hashtag 'DickOut' is/was trending on twitter today

It trends everytime the subject individual running the Met is in the news. The other common joke is "Dick by name, **** by nature".

 

[P Binnersley]

As far as I know, the law entitling them to issue fixed penalty notices has expired, which may complicate things.

The time limit for prosecuting Coronavirus offences is 3 years.

If you do not pay the fine, you may be charged with a criminal offence of breaching the coronavirus regulations. The coronavirus regulations were made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 which says that if the police or the CPS are going to charge you with an offence, they must do it within:

Three years from the date the offence was committed, and
Six months from the date the prosecutor believes they have enough evidence to charge you.

Coronavirus: Criminal penalties - Liberty

www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk

 

[brad465]

The Wikipedia article detailing all the illegal parties has now actually been called "Partygate" (it was previously called "Westminster lockdown parties controversy"), so this seems to be the official scandal name:

Partygate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Partygate is an ongoing political scandal surrounding social gatherings of United Kingdom government and Conservative Party staff that took place during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, when there were public health restrictions on specified types of gatherings. Whilst several lockdowns in the country were in place, reported gatherings occurred at 10 Downing Street, its garden, and other government buildings. Starting in December 2021, these attracted substantial media attention, public debate, and controversy.

The Daily Mirror was first to report allegations in December 2021 that some 10 Downing Street staff had held gatherings during the 2020 Christmas season, after their planned Christmas party was cancelled due to the COVID-19 "tier" regulations in place at the time. Prime Minister Boris Johnson denied that any rules were broken, and a spokesperson denied that a party occurred. A week later, video of a practice press conference held in 10 Downing Street was leaked to and broadcast by ITV News in which joking comments parodying answers to questions about a party having taken place were made. Allegra Stratton, then Downing Street press secretary, featured in the video, and resigned her subsequent Government position after the video surfaced. In January 2022, reports emerged that there were around 30 in one account, and 40 in another, attendees at a social gathering with drinks, which took place on 20 May 2020 in the garden of 10 Downing Street during the first national lockdown. Johnson said that he attended and apologised for doing so. Downing Street apologised to Queen Elizabeth II for two further gatherings that took place on 16 April 2021, on the day before Prince Philip's funeral, during a third lockdown across England. Reports followed of a gathering at which Johnson's birthday was celebrated with a cake in June 2020.

After the press conference video leaked, on 8 December 2021 Johnson announced a Cabinet Office inquiry would be undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case, to investigate whether COVID-19 restrictions were broken at that or other staff events. Case stepped back from the inquiry on 17 December, amid reports that his own office had also held a party in December 2020, and responsibility for the inquiry was handed to Sue Gray. In January 2022, the Metropolitan Police opened its own investigation into potential breaches of COVID-19 regulations in government buildings, leading to uncertainty over the timing and possible content of Gray's report.

Shaun Bailey resigned from a number of his positions, including chair of the London Assembly's Police and Crime Committee, after admitting to a party on 14 December 2020 with Conservative Party staff. A gathering on 10 December 2020 at the Department for Education is also part of the Cabinet Office inquiry.

Public disquiet over how government staff and others in Westminster were perceived to have been breaking restrictions led to a decline in public support for Boris Johnson, the government and the Conservative Party, and is thought to have contributed to the party's loss of the 2021 North Shropshire by-election. In January 2022, a number of Conservative and opposition politicians called for Johnson's resignation.

 

[43096]

The Wikipedia article detailing all the illegal parties has now actually been called "Partygate" (it was previously called "Westminster lockdown parties controversy"), so this seems to be the official scandal name:

Partygate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The usual tedious thing of adding “-gate” after some political controversy. It’s been the lazy way of doing such things ever since Watergate.

 

[SuspectUsual]

After all, the prosecutions after an accident can go up as far as manslaughter, whereas here we are just talking about fines

Not if they’re also investigating potential perjury

 

[nw1]

I question whether the police need to get involved at all. It is well known that police resources are stretched currently so should they be using their resources for investigating breaking lockdown rules and technically perverting the court of justice, rather than focusing their resources on fighting more serious crime?

Police were certainly used to enforce lockdown rules against 'normal' people, so I think it's reasonable they are being used to investigate lockdown rule breaches amongst the very people that enforced them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2022 ==

The usual tedious thing of adding “-gate” after some political controversy. It’s been the lazy way of doing such things ever since Watergate.

I actually think it's quite amusing in a way, depending on the controversy. It seemed to be particularly prominent in the late 80s and 90s, i.e. Irangate (was that the first ever 'gate' scandal post-Watergate), Saddamgate, Camillagate, Squidgygate.

Of course Partygate eclipsed Peppagate.

Surprisingly, a search for 'Hancockgate' returns nothing much, indeed the top result is for some scandal involving a Hancock in Colorado.

 

[Typhoon]

Surprisingly, a search for 'Hancockgate' returns nothing much, indeed the top result is for some scandal involving a Hancock in Colorado.

I would suggest two reasons. Firstly, Hancockgate does not trip off the tongue the way Partygate does. Secondly, and more importantly, it was over pretty quickly. For the media, particularly that part of it that wants an easy story, its the gift that keeps on giving.

As regards Hancock, he appears to be trying to force his way into the media. No interview opportunity or photo-op is turned down. One newspaper even had him in Daniel Craig 007 poses with comparisons. Maybe in a re-make - 'Muckraker'. (I wouldn't put it past him to be contributing to some of the leaks of Partygate details.)

 

[Busaholic]

Sue Gray has been stitched up like a kipper by a combination of Boris Johnson, Cressida Dick, the Cabinet Office, probably Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all. The puzzlement in Jonathan Sumption's expression on Newsnight last night when the latest developments were being discussed was a sight to behold. Diane Abbott proved she can cut to the chase when she puts her mind to it too, and even Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown spoke some sense for a change.They all agreed there is absolutely no reason why Sue Gray should be prevented from producing the report she wants, and it being published in full with no redactions. The only possible reason not to do this, from a legal point of view, would be if potential jurors in a forthcoming by criminal trial could be 'prejudiced' by the report/evidence, and we know from the Met's own statements that only coronavirus breaches are being looked at, so no jury trial!

If Sue Gray doesn't take 'early retirement', or whatever form of weasel words are stitched together, after this then I'm the Prime Minister.

 

[D6130]

If Sue Gray doesn't take 'early retirement', or whatever form of weasel words are stitched together, after this then I'm the Prime Minister.

Given her age, I don't think you could really describe it as 'early' retirement.

 

[Busaholic]

Given her age, I don't think you could really describe it as 'early' retirement.

Earlier than she'd originally intended.