How is the Tory government doing?

Partygate: Insiders tell of packed No 10 lockdown parties
By Laura Kuenssberg
BBC Panorama

Published 22 minutes ago

More trouble heading for Boris from BBC's Panorama...

Video clip below and lengthy article in the link here -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61566410

So the Met had all the photos and witness statements and as a result decided that the gatherings were illegal and fined all the civil servants present - but not the Tory politicians who attended, notably the GAP.

I'm curious to know what everyone thinks why this is the case?

Obviously we can rule out corruption because Sluffy says so, so what is the real reason?

wanderlust wrote:So the Met had all the photos and witness statements and as a result decided that the gatherings were illegal and fined all the civil servants present - but not the Tory politicians who attended, notably the GAP.

I'm curious to know what everyone thinks why this is the case?

Obviously we can rule out corruption because Sluffy says so, so what is the real reason?

Aren't you following all this yet again???

Here let me help you...

Sluffy wrote:Boris Johnson will not face a further Partygate fine, says No 10

Acting Deputy Commissioner Helen Ball said whether an event had taken place in "someone's home" was a factor in deciding whether to issue a fine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61508110

Sluffy wrote:
Aren't you understanding any of what is going on?


It seems clear that Johnson was fined for breaking the rules at his birthday party, that he almost certainly lied at Carrie's 'Winner Takes it All' party about "interviewing" one of her friends who attended in respect of a job - and thus implying he was 'working' at the time(!) and that the other four occasions (include the BYOB party) were not investigated in respect of him because the police lawyers would have told the Met that there was just enough of a grey area (no pun intended) that he was in his own residence and garden and thus had reason to be there at the time yet not be connected with the illegal parties going on.

Gray has clearly and demonstrably done her job 'honestly and 'interdependently' so far - otherwise Johnson, Carrie and Rishi wouldn't even have received the fines they have - so no mate, I'm not naive at all.

You however are clearly utterly bonkers if you believe half the guff you spout about how the system actually works and Sue Gray's part in it.

Sluffy wrote:As for Johnson and partygate, it would seem as I've said before that the Met Police lawyers aren't certain about the grey area of lockdown regulations and Johnson being in his own home and garden, which also doubles up as his work place.

The pictures above and narrative seem to suggest that he gave a leaving speech of just 10 minutes to a 'work' colleague, then LEFT.  I suspect those who received a fine admitted to carrying on the party after all the 'work' speeches of 'thanks and best wishes' were over - in other words the 'work' bit had finished and the 'party' bit just carried on from it.

Sluffy wrote:It's not his opinion though, he is actual stating his belief as to what he sees to be true.

Look for instance how he's slagged off Sue Gray - you know how she would only write what Boris told her to do - well that's clearly wrong he's been found to have broken the law in respect of lockdown because of Gray's findings and providing actual evidence to the police to prosecute him (if he had challenged the fixed penalty notice).

Happy to help!!!

You never fail to please

wanderlust wrote:You never fail to please

You never fail to make me laugh at you.

I don't know for certain that that is the reason behind the Met's failure to go further on Johnson but they are (well, were) in a situation that they needed to be absolutely certain that if they issued a FPN to the PM and he contested it at court, that they were 100% certain of a conviction.

The Met's Acting Deputy Commissionaire put on record about 'events' taking place in 'someones home' and I've taken that to mean that there is just enough wriggle room for Johnson to contest any further VPN's they might have issued with No 10/ No 11 being both his place of work and his home and garden.

Can you imagine the outcry (by people like you for instance) if they had issued further fines and Johnson overturned them at court on appeal - inept police, corrupt judiciary, secret handshakes, corruption, friends of friends and all sorts of hysterical nonsense that you and others wallow in.

Gray has done her job (contrary to anything you have said up to now) in such a way that she's delivered cast iron proof to the Met, sufficient to convict Johnson of breaking the law in respect of Covid (he paid the FPN and did not contest it).

There's absolutely no reason she won't continue to do so in the reporting whatever she does in her report to come.

Whatever it says won't be a cover up but a true and honest representation as to what she's found based on the terms of reference she has worked to.

That's how the system works - and not how you obviously believes it does.

The convict's next outrageous attempt to slide out of his guilt may well be to claim that it's not he himself at these parties but actor Kenneth Branagh who is rehearsing for his next role as the PM in a new TV drama, to be screened shortly.....Tory bots and ministers might still believe and defend him....

wanderlust wrote:So the Met had all the photos and witness statements and as a result decided that the gatherings were illegal and fined all the civil servants present - but not the Tory politicians who attended, notably the Boris Johnson.

I'm curious to know what everyone thinks why this is the case?

Obviously we can rule out corruption because Sluffy says so, so what is the real reason?

You answer the question The Met Police who would trust them to get anything correct. It's bordering on farcical yet the Tories still trot out the ministers to defend the indefensible. Shameful.

wessy wrote:
You answer the question The Met Police who would trust them to get anything correct. It's bordering on farcical yet the Tories still trot out the ministers to defend the indefensible. Shameful.

It's getting interesting Wessy.
When he started lying months ago, there was discontent amongst Tory MPs and a few wrote no confidence letters to the 1922 lot, but when push came to shove they sold their principles down the river and backed him as he is considered an electoral asset.
As the bullshit continued, the undercurrent of discontent spread into the core Tory vote and recent polls have shown that 26% of people who voted Tory in the general election wouldn't now do so if the lubricated white diminutive porcine offspring stays.
He's now being viewed as an electoral liability - and things are more likely to get worse for him than better, especially if those in the know are brave enough to dish the dirt they have on him.
It's going to be increasingly difficult for him to continue playing the affable eccentric as the truth emerges about his scheming, lying and manipulation and when his own voters turn on him, the MPs will have no choice but listen to their constituents. The mealy mouthed excuses like "it was only a piece of cake", "he didn't know what was happening" and "move on there's nothing to see here" are wearing thin.
Still a way to go before they dump him as they have nobody they can have confidence in to replace him plus they would then be judged on performance rather than personality - and they've had a shocker - but it's starting to look like the tipping point is closer. Whether it will be reached or not is itself in the balance.

To the fury of G*A*P supporters everywhere, Sadiq Khan has asked the Met to attempt to restore public confidence in the police by explaining their decision.

A spokesperson for the London mayor said: 'Sadiq has today written to the acting Commissioner of the Met to seek a detailed explanation of the factors which were taken into account by investigating officers when decisions were made about whether to take action in individual cases in the Downing Street 'Partygate' investigation.
'He has asked them to take steps to also reassure Londoners by making this explanation to them directly, because he is concerned that the trust and confidence of Londoners in the police is being further eroded by this lack of clarity.
'The mayor has been clear he cannot and would not intervene in operational decisions, however with the investigation now complete, he has made this request in accordance with the Policing Protocol Order 2011 paragraph 23(g).'

Clearly greasy blonde piggie fans (or "the piglettes" as they shall be known henceforth) don't believe that the public should have confidence in the police

Interesting that it’s fine on here to continually level personal abuse at our PM and label him a greasy porcine and worse and also refer to those who vote Tory as greasy blonde piggy fans or “piglettes” yet no retribution results unlike a generally accepted and widely accepted colloquialism for the French which apparently requires removal.

Whitesince63 wrote:Interesting that it’s fine on here to continually level personal abuse at our PM and label him a greasy porcine and worse and also refer to those who vote Tory as greasy blonde piggy fans or “piglettes” yet no retribution results unlike a generally accepted and widely accepted colloquialism for the French which apparently requires removal.

Hello mate! I was just having a bit of fun extrapolating David Cameron's comment that Johnson is a G*P - it was a Tory Prime Minister who first called him that. The G*A*P thing actually came from a recent article in Conservative Home in which grass roots Tories increasingly voice their exasperation with Johnson destroying the reputation of the party.
Nor did I describe people who vote Tory as "piglettes" - that was a clear reference to the politicians and other apologists for Johnson - most grass roots Tories these days have had enough of him from what I can tell.

Personally, I'm surprised that you are not one of the many Tories who want him gone - he is after all a lying arsehole who puts his own career ahead of everything else - including the Tory party.

Read this from "The Home of Conservatism" if you need context.

okocha wrote:
My wife was born in Grantham.....went to the same school. The similarity ends there, I'm happy to say!

You mean Mrs Okocha only bosses you about and not the whole country.

Egg-chucking adults should be put in the stocks along with Rag-loving Boltonians. It might just teach them a bit of 'self-awareness'.

Whitesince63 wrote:Interesting that it’s fine on here to continually level personal abuse at our PM and label him a greasy porcine and worse and also refer to those who vote Tory as greasy blonde piggy fans or “piglettes” yet no retribution results unlike a generally accepted and widely accepted colloquialism for the French which apparently requires removal.

Nice to see you back WS63, still not bitter then? 

Whitesince63 wrote:Interesting that it’s fine on here to continually level personal abuse at our PM and label him a greasy porcine and worse and also refer to those who vote Tory as greasy blonde piggy fans or “piglettes” yet no retribution results unlike a generally accepted and widely accepted colloquialism for the French which apparently requires removal.

It isn't fine to do either mate.

The world has moved on from such behaviour and and it reflects more about how much you both are behind the times (we are talking solely about you and Wanderlust of course).

There is as always on this site a history behind all of this.

A year or so ago Wanderlust made a colloquialism about the Welsh just as you did against the French, no big deal really but not what we would like to see on Nuts anymore (you no longer see such terms in the press on hear them said from comedians on telly anymore for instance).

Wanderlust being how he is deliberately defied my simple and polite request to stop using the word in future on the site.   He defied my next request also, then the one after that, then the one after that and so on for six times.

When he did it a seventh time I banned him.

So when you made your comment someone else (with an axe to grind against me and not you) deliberately made an attempt to stir up shit, by using you - who of course were innocent of all knowledge of this which had gone on previously.

As in the initial case with Wanderlust I politely ask you not to use that colloquialism on here again to which you decided to leave the form instead.

Our loss but your choice.

As for Wanderlust and his recent infantile and pathetic behaviour in name calling Johnson, I have already called him out about this and likened him to a seven year old for doing it and have started to use the site's censor facility to change what he posts in this regard to Johnson's actual name instead.

Instead of taking the hint he is going to the trouble of making his posts, seeing that the word censor has altered them, going back into his post to find another way to word his insult and reposting again.

I ask again is this the behaviour of a seventy year grown man or a seven year old petulant and stroppy and entitled little brat?  I just see it as utterly pathetic behaviour, first in the need to name call and secondly in the need to continue that behaviour knowing it isn't wanted on here.

Let's be honest though all of the colloquialisms and name calling is just childish at best and you both simply just can't accept it simply is not wanted on here.

It isn't that difficult at all to accept this and move on but no you've both decided to make a childish a pathetic stand of self entitlement over it instead.

It says more about yourselves than it does about the site or modern day society.

You both need to give your heads a good shake and put it behind you but neither of you seem to want to.

Your choice, your behaviour but neither of you are in the right or come out of this looking good by carrying it on and refusing to change your ways.

Life is to short to deal with such pathetic and insignificant shit.

You both need to grow up and move on but I suspect that neither of you can - you both prefer to live in the past, whilst the rest of us have moved on and left you behind.

The Graywash has finally been published - making allegations but unsurprisingly, not naming names.

It's significant that Whatsapp messages reveal that Senior aide Martin Reynolds pointed out that their was a "comms risk" at the time.

Yup, not getting caught is far more important than actually doing the right thing it seems.

wanderlust wrote:The Sue Gray report has finally been published - making allegations but unsurprisingly, not naming names.

It's significant that Whatsapp messages reveal that Senior aide Martin Reynolds pointed out that their was a "comms risk" at the time.

Yup, not getting caught is far more important than actually doing the right thing it seems.

No, that is simply not true!!!

Who has been named?
No one was identified in Ms Gray's initial report, which was released in January this year as the Met Police began investigating the events.

With the police force's investigation now concluded, Ms Gray has named some senior officials and ministers in her final report. They include:

Prime Minister Boris Johnson
Chancellor Rishi Sunak
Cabinet Secretary Simon Case, the most senior civil servant
Cleo Watson, a No 10 special adviser
Dominic Cummings, the PM's former chief adviser
Lee Cain, the PM's former communications chief
James Slack, No 10's former director of communications
Martin Reynolds, the PM's former principal private secretary
Helen MacNamara, No 10's former ethics chief

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61578618

Sue Gray report in full all 60 pages of it including photographs.

https://order-order.com/2022/05/25/read-sue-gray-report-in-full/?fbclid=IwAR3cbiFAE7XqOtiRGIyzHa4wDpPO5oaoeBC-6Z2MKE3ISbFyC0JkDXebUYs

Maugham/GLP taking legal action in respect of Met Police failure to investigate Johnson fully and their decision to fine some for Covid breeches at partygate events but not others who were also present.

The Metropolitan Police investigated the various gatherings – we use a neutral expression – around 10 Downing Street during the pandemic lockdown by sending questionnaires to suspected attendees.

Our interest is in three such gatherings:

On 13 November 2020, a gathering in No. 10 on the departure of a special adviser (understood to be the former Downing Street Director of Communications)
On 17 December 2020, a gathering in the Cabinet Office on the departure of a senior Cabinet Office official (understood to be a defence advisor)
On 14 January 2021, a gathering at No. 10 on the departure of two No. 10 private secretaries.
Together, these are known as the “Three Gatherings”.

It is reported that the Prime Minister did not receive questionnaires in respect of the Three Gatherings despite evidence that he attended them. Other attendees did receive questionnaires. We do not understand the decision to investigate some attendees but not the Prime Minister.

Attendees at the Three Gatherings who received questionnaires were fined for attending them. We do not understand the decision to fine some attendees but not the Prime Minister. As we understand the law, if a gathering was prohibited it follows that all who participated in it committed an offence.

We can see no basis for holding junior civil servants to a higher standard than the Prime Minister. And that is why we – former senior police officer Lord Brian Paddick and Good Law Project – have taken the first formal step in further judicial review proceedings against the Metropolitan Police.

We invite the Met to confirm it will rectify its failures to investigate the Prime Minister’s participation in the Three Gatherings, or provide us with its reasons so we can assess the lawfulness of its refusal. Unless it does, and we have given it 14 days to comply, we will begin further judicial review proceedings.

Lord Paddick: “If the Met is to avoid further deterioration in public trust and confidence, they must explain why they failed to even question the Prime Minister about his attendance at these events. We are simply asking the Met to either explain or investigate further, and if necessary we will ask the Courts to force the Met to do so.”

It was only after Good Law Project began judicial review proceedings in January that the Met agreed to investigate at all. And we will not hesitate to commence further proceedings to ensure it investigates them properly.

For the rule of law to operate it must operate fairly, without favour to the powerful. We will do what we can to ensure it does.

https://goodlawproject.org/news/the-law-must-apply-fairly-to-all/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=no10-gatherings-failure-250522&utm_medium=social%20media

Quote taken from Sue Gray's report made by Martin Reynolds the civil servant and sender of the BYOB invite.



Lee Cain after being invited to BOYB drinks in Downing Street garden:
"I'm sure it it'll be fine-and I applaud the gesture - but a 200 odd person invitation for drinks in the gardenof no 10 is somewhat of a comms risk in the current environment."

so Sue Gray inquiry into ABBA party stopped 'cos police starting', cops don't investigate, SG says 'disproportionate' to investigate now, 0 of those who saw/heard party interviewed #HowBadCoverupsWork #CrimeWeek pic.twitter.com/fRpCfXivSK

— Dominic Cummings (@Dominic2306) May 25, 2022