Sue Gray Inquiry
Discussion
I know we are still yet to be told the outcome of the inquiry BUT given the confidence Boris and his cronies seem to have by keep referring to “wait to see what Sue Gray’s inquiry concludes”. Are people sceptical on what comes out of it?
As a Civil Servant who’s boss is the PM, can she really be independent and find against him? Would her pension be affected etc?
So the question is…has Sue Gray been nobbled?
As a Civil Servant who’s boss is the PM, can she really be independent and find against him? Would her pension be affected etc?
So the question is…has Sue Gray been nobbled?
Edited by W12GT on Tuesday 18th January 16:50
I believe the line of thinking is that Sue Gray can only lay out facts and cannot directly say that Johnson broke the ministerial code.
At which point his supporters will claim he's been vindicated and is completely innocent of any wrongdoing and definitely hasn't lied to Parliament or the public.
At which point his supporters will claim he's been vindicated and is completely innocent of any wrongdoing and definitely hasn't lied to Parliament or the public.
Quite like the idea that Joe Lycetts spoof report had mp's in panic
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/joe-lycet...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/joe-lycet...
If the report is a clear vindiction of Johnson - unlikely I know, but you never know - then there would be no point in delaying matters. Alll the time people are discussing the report, more people will jump ship.
I can't believe that the move by the Met to invetigate was anything but politically motivated. Dick has a checkered career, with some outstanding scandals. That they chose her over Tim Godwin is another scandal. He would not have given into political pressure, so was never going to get the job just because he'd be good for the Met at a time when they needed a competant leader more than ever.
There's too much in the public domain for anyone but the committed, with possibly the should be committed in that group, to believe no parties took place or that Johnson was aware of them. Gray has the additional problem, that is if she wants to make light of his actions, that she has no idea what might leak should it appear that she hasn't done her job with due discretion and honesty.
It obviously can be bent and twisted, and equally obviously will be bent and twisted, but if the report does not put the finger on Johnson, then Gray's report will be scathed by the media and social media.
To delay such matters is a common political ploy. Wait for some great tragedy/war/sex scandal to take over the front pages and then publish it. Those papers sympathetic to the tories will put the report on page 7. Those who focus on it will be criticised; 'typical BBC', and when it finally is talked of, the impact is much, much lower and everyone will be able to give their justification and exlanation.
Johnson will divert. 'Did you have a party?', 'The vaccine rollout was good.' If said war went well and Johnson had some input, then the reply could be, 'I was doing important stuff. Look how I saved the world from . . .'
I think it is the normal tactic. Put off, put off, put off as something or other always happens. I'm sure some will excuse whatever he is found to have done by, 'Oh, that's Johnson. We all expected that when we voted for him.'
I can't believe that the move by the Met to invetigate was anything but politically motivated. Dick has a checkered career, with some outstanding scandals. That they chose her over Tim Godwin is another scandal. He would not have given into political pressure, so was never going to get the job just because he'd be good for the Met at a time when they needed a competant leader more than ever.
There's too much in the public domain for anyone but the committed, with possibly the should be committed in that group, to believe no parties took place or that Johnson was aware of them. Gray has the additional problem, that is if she wants to make light of his actions, that she has no idea what might leak should it appear that she hasn't done her job with due discretion and honesty.
It obviously can be bent and twisted, and equally obviously will be bent and twisted, but if the report does not put the finger on Johnson, then Gray's report will be scathed by the media and social media.
To delay such matters is a common political ploy. Wait for some great tragedy/war/sex scandal to take over the front pages and then publish it. Those papers sympathetic to the tories will put the report on page 7. Those who focus on it will be criticised; 'typical BBC', and when it finally is talked of, the impact is much, much lower and everyone will be able to give their justification and exlanation.
Johnson will divert. 'Did you have a party?', 'The vaccine rollout was good.' If said war went well and Johnson had some input, then the reply could be, 'I was doing important stuff. Look how I saved the world from . . .'
I think it is the normal tactic. Put off, put off, put off as something or other always happens. I'm sure some will excuse whatever he is found to have done by, 'Oh, that's Johnson. We all expected that when we voted for him.'
Derek Smith said:
If the report is a clear vindiction of Johnson - unlikely I know, but you never know - then there would be no point in delaying matters. Alll the time people are discussing the report, more people will jump ship.
I can't believe that the move by the Met to invetigate was anything but politically motivated. Dick has a checkered career, with some outstanding scandals. That they chose her over Tim Godwin is another scandal. He would not have given into political pressure, so was never going to get the job just because he'd be good for the Met at a time when they needed a competant leader more than ever.
There's too much in the public domain for anyone but the committed, with possibly the should be committed in that group, to believe no parties took place or that Johnson was aware of them. Gray has the additional problem, that is if she wants to make light of his actions, that she has no idea what might leak should it appear that she hasn't done her job with due discretion and honesty.
It obviously can be bent and twisted, and equally obviously will be bent and twisted, but if the report does not put the finger on Johnson, then Gray's report will be scathed by the media and social media.
To delay such matters is a common political ploy. Wait for some great tragedy/war/sex scandal to take over the front pages and then publish it. Those papers sympathetic to the tories will put the report on page 7. Those who focus on it will be criticised; 'typical BBC', and when it finally is talked of, the impact is much, much lower and everyone will be able to give their justification and exlanation.
Johnson will divert. 'Did you have a party?', 'The vaccine rollout was good.' If said war went well and Johnson had some input, then the reply could be, 'I was doing important stuff. Look how I saved the world from . . .'
I think it is the normal tactic. Put off, put off, put off as something or other always happens. I'm sure some will excuse whatever he is found to have done by, 'Oh, that's Johnson. We all expected that when we voted for him.'
Derek, I think in normal times this would be the case, but it's clear that there are people in government who are actively briefing against Boris. They will ensure that this doesn't go away and will continue the slow drip of bad news stories.I can't believe that the move by the Met to invetigate was anything but politically motivated. Dick has a checkered career, with some outstanding scandals. That they chose her over Tim Godwin is another scandal. He would not have given into political pressure, so was never going to get the job just because he'd be good for the Met at a time when they needed a competant leader more than ever.
There's too much in the public domain for anyone but the committed, with possibly the should be committed in that group, to believe no parties took place or that Johnson was aware of them. Gray has the additional problem, that is if she wants to make light of his actions, that she has no idea what might leak should it appear that she hasn't done her job with due discretion and honesty.
It obviously can be bent and twisted, and equally obviously will be bent and twisted, but if the report does not put the finger on Johnson, then Gray's report will be scathed by the media and social media.
To delay such matters is a common political ploy. Wait for some great tragedy/war/sex scandal to take over the front pages and then publish it. Those papers sympathetic to the tories will put the report on page 7. Those who focus on it will be criticised; 'typical BBC', and when it finally is talked of, the impact is much, much lower and everyone will be able to give their justification and exlanation.
Johnson will divert. 'Did you have a party?', 'The vaccine rollout was good.' If said war went well and Johnson had some input, then the reply could be, 'I was doing important stuff. Look how I saved the world from . . .'
I think it is the normal tactic. Put off, put off, put off as something or other always happens. I'm sure some will excuse whatever he is found to have done by, 'Oh, that's Johnson. We all expected that when we voted for him.'
hstewie said:goldbazinga said:
Derek, I think in normal times this would be the case, but it's clear that there are people in government who are actively briefing against Boris. They will ensure that this doesn't go away and will continue the slow drip of bad news stories.
I agree that the current situation is somewhat unusual. There're those in the party who want Johnson out, but they have different reasons, and many are well apart in political beliefs. If they could get together, then yes, he's toast. Much will depend on the Report.I can't see it staying secret for long. There will be leaks. Or, much more fun, there will be rumours, probably spread deliberately, that are far worse than her conclusions, in effect forcing it's publication.
I think that Starmer doesn't want Johnson to be kicked out. Not now. The longer he stays in position, the more mistakes he'll make and the more transparent he'll become. Whatever the report says, by sacking Johnson the tories will be able to put a line under all the appalling behaviour and inept decisions and instead of suggesting that we should look at the vaccine rollout, we'll be told that it was other times with another leader.
Two years for the replacement is probably a year too long. Starmer needs to manage the Report.
Johnson will, I think, remain in post, whatever Gray's report suggests, or the Met enquiry concludes, until the May elections. If they are half as bad as predicted, he'll be under a great deal of pressure. If he doesn't resign, especially if the Report of the enquiry hints at lies to the House, then the battle for succession will harm the party unless they can slide someone in without fuss.
But who?
Sky suggesting that the redacted Report will be published in the next few hours or days. There are risky predictions. This is not one of them.
Earthdweller said:
Had a lot of time for Tim Godwin I must admit
What’s going on now just makes me despair, I see no reason why the Met couldn’t have stayed out of it till after the publication of the Grey report then acted on its findings if necessary and appropriate
I just sit here shaking my head
I was at a meeting with him. Lots of high rankers. There was me and a sergeant as well who were there to fill chairs. I was asked one question. It was inconsequential and everyone knew the answer. What’s going on now just makes me despair, I see no reason why the Met couldn’t have stayed out of it till after the publication of the Grey report then acted on its findings if necessary and appropriate
I just sit here shaking my head
Godwin silenced a chief super with a turn of the head. He was scary.
The high rankers I respected obviously repected him. He was in control yet his questions were put in a mild voice, and his criticisms were knife-like.
It hs to be Dick who timed the investigation. There's no other credible alternative. She was going into some hush-hush post in government at one time, before getting the top job. I feel that she has support somewhere.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff