[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[rippleman]

From what I saw, the Met has only asked that the report makes "minimal reference" to any matters related to the Met investigation(s), in order to avoid prejudicing their work. That seems fair to me.

Feels like we're circling back to the Gray report arriving in two parts - part 1 being anything the Met have decided not to touch, plus the "minimal references" to the matters the Met has picked up. And then a second (maybe not needed, given the Met itself will provide the answers) once the Met investigation is done.

Surely if this is a totally independent report from a totally independent investigator the Met shouldn't have even been given access to the report prior to its publication let alone have any input or impact on its content.

The Met would have been aware of the Downing Street parties at the time they were happening and didn't see fit to take any action then or indeed subsequently. Then up pop's Ms Gray with her investigation and suddenly the Met are all over it.

 

[Is it PotG?]

As for your first comment, yes, for a change, you're probably right

There's no probably about it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

There's no probably about it.

I could give lessons, but my hourly rate is very high. Socialism ends where transactions begin

 

[Is it PotG?]

I could give lessons, but my hourly rate is very high. Socialism ends where transactions begin

I DO hope you're not tarring all champagne lefties with the same brush, where there's a buck to be made.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

If only we were all as bright and enlightened as you, then the world would indeed be a better place.

I feel this has been covered before, the continued mantra of 'if you vote this, you're thick' has proven not to be the approach in order to achieve success. You stick with it.

He"s just another person who voted for Corbyn to become PM who can't understand how anyone could be stupid enough to vote for someone so clearly unfit to lead the country ...

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[vegster]

Bit of both is likely. The Report will come out, but with the main things reduced to a 'minimal reference' as requested by the Met. Then Johnson will be able to claim that the report raises no serious issues (because they've all been removed for the Police to deal with). The the Police investigation will dwindle away, and they don't have a duty to explain why charges and so on haven't been brought. And Johnson will then claim that as no serious issues as well. It would be difficult for a second part of the report on those instances to be then published, as Johnson will say 'all dealt with by the Police, no need for such a report'.

So the actual list of folk at these parties will never be disclosed, Johnson's name won't be published....

Sadly, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Johnson's lie, delay, and muddle policy seems to be working yet again.

I think it might be time for another Cummings Bombshell.

 

[usernamed]

If only we were all as bright and enlightened as you, then the world would indeed be a better place.

I feel this has been covered before, the continued mantra of 'if you vote this, you're thick' has proven not to be the approach in order to achieve success. You stick with it.

I agree that “if you vote this, you’re thick” is definitely a path to failure, but there is a valid question in there:

If you vote for Party A because you don’t like feature of society B, and even after repeatedly voting for Party A over a period of more than 20 years, the prevalence of feature of society B has only increased, is there a point at which you stop voting for Party A? Or is it Party A forever as long as they continue to SAY they’re against feature of society B.

I ask the question with respect, I would genuinely be interested to know whether there has to be any meaningful change/action, or whether the rhetoric just has to be right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eric the meek]

There seems to be a few ad hominem comments beginning to grace the forum. Just saying.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I DO hope you're not tarring all champagne lefties with the same brush, where there's a buck to be made.

View attachment 144419

We are all capitalists at heart. I certainly am.

But not everyone has that vein of naked bastardism that runs through them like blue mould through a stilton

And, also, it isn't becoming to sneer at lefties who have money. It has an unpleasant whiff of 'you shuold know your place' about it.

 

[Surf's Up]

The way this is being handled stinks.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I agree that “if you vote this, you’re thick” is definitely a path to failure, but there is a valid question in there:

If you vote for Party A because you don’t like feature of society B, and even after repeatedly voting for Party A over a period of more than 20 years, the prevalence of feature of society B has only increased, is there a point at which you stop voting for Party A? Or is it Party A forever as long as they continue to SAY they’re against feature of society B.

I ask the question with respect, I would genuinely be interested to know whether there has to be any meaningful change/action, or whether the rhetoric just has to be right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He was having a little dig at me, which is fine. I have made the very point that the labour party and it's more hairy arsed acolytes need to belt up about white van man and 'tory scum'.

However he was being insouciant (not for the first time) because he knows very well I was directing my scorn at the very people to whom you allude - those beyond redemption, those who would vote for Jimmy Savile if he were to put on a blue rosette and, importantly, it is extremely unlikely that my comment will be blasted across social media by the Daily Mail in an attempt to embarrass the labour party

 

[MJsGhost]

I agree that “if you vote this, you’re thick” is definitely a path to failure, but there is a valid question in there:

If you vote for Party A because you don’t like feature of society B, and even after repeatedly voting for Party A over a period of more than 20 years, the prevalence of feature of society B has only increased, is there a point at which you stop voting for Party A? Or is it Party A forever as long as they continue to SAY they’re against feature of society B.

I ask the question with respect, I would genuinely be interested to know whether there has to be any meaningful change/action, or whether the rhetoric just has to be right?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For that to work, the party concerned would have to have been in power for much of the period of time concerned, otherwise they wouldn't have had an opportunity to do something about it.




Oh.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

It seems this party, non party with cake or without was actually reported by the Times when it happened.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-settles-in-as-downing-sts-captain-sensible-t7xr2689g

The outcry for this seems weird now, almost as weird as lying about it when its already published.

 

[Eric the meek]

Here's the latest report on the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60166997

For me, this is the key extract:

'Ms Gray wanted to send a copy of the report to No 10 which could be published in full. That was the intention this morning.
But the police statement appears to have thrown the process into chaos. Many in the cabinet office did not know it was coming - and are working out the implications.'

Edit: 'The Met Police have told Sue Gray to keep key details out of her report into lockdown parties in No 10, throwing the process into confusion.
The Met says it does not want Ms Gray's report - which had been due to be published this week - to "prejudice" their investigation.'

 

[beorhthelm]

I agree that “if you vote this, you’re thick” is definitely a path to failure, but there is a valid question in there:

If you vote for Party A because you don’t like feature of society B, and even after repeatedly voting for Party A over a period of more than 20 years, the prevalence of feature of society B has only increased, is there a point at which you stop voting for Party A? Or is it Party A forever as long as they continue to SAY they’re against feature of society B.

I ask the question with respect, I would genuinely be interested to know whether there has to be any meaningful change/action, or whether the rhetoric just has to be right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

well yes, since most the time the difference between the parties is how they want to change feature B.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Here's the latest report on the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60166997

For me, this is the key extract:

'Ms Gray wanted to send a copy of the report to No 10 which could be published in full. That was the intention this morning.
But the police statement appears to have thrown the process into chaos. Many in the cabinet office did not know it was coming - and are working out the implications.'

Edit: 'The Met Police have told Sue Gray to keep key details out of her report into lockdown parties in No 10, throwing the process into confusion.
The Met says it does not want Ms Gray's report - which had been due to be published this week - to "prejudice" their investigation.'

Perfect for the PM.

The Gray report can be dumped in the filing cabinet with the Russian report with space made for the Covid response enquiry that won’t be published until he is gone either.

 

[RandyWanger]

Of course I don't believe a single word that Johnson or this government says, there is no way that some sort of pressure has not been put on the leader of the civil service regarding the report, the cabinet and MP'S are falling over themselves to protect Johnson knowing that they could well be out of a job if he goes.
The report will be released tomorrow at about 5 or 6pm as these things often are to attempt to nullify some of the impact over the weekend.
So sick of hearing that Johnson is the good guy because he got Brexit done and saw us through the pandemic.
Are people really believing that bollox, he cobbled together a shit deal that we are going to pay a heavy price for in the years to come and we had one of the worst death tolls in the world, spending millions on Nightingale Hospitals that had no staff so he sent old people to homes to die to free up bed space.
The PPE scandal, billions wasted on the world beating test and trace system and a vaccine that was handed to him on a plate, any PM would have done the same, it had naff all to do with Johnson being a great PM, it was thanks to the NHS anyway.
And then of course he and his staff partied while we buried our families.
And people would still vote for him.
Extraordinary.

Very much this.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

It seems this party, non party with cake or without was actually reported by the Times when it happened.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-settles-in-as-downing-sts-captain-sensible-t7xr2689g

The outcry for this seems weird now, almost as weird as lying about it when its already published.

The birthday party is an irrelevance, it's the other after work parties, especially the one where loads of peeps were invited by email from the PPS; the two which took place on the end of the Duke of Edinburghs funeral, and the various Christmas bashes, that are far more serious.

I'm not surprised the Tories are trying to divert all the attention to the birthday party, because in isolation its not much of an issue.

 

[Eric the meek]

The way this is being handled stinks.

It's worse than that.

There's hypocrisy, duplicity, lies, 'rhubarb' (=denial without actually denying anything), false apology in the Commons, immediate retraction of the false apology in the Commons tea room, delay in the Sue Gray report, chaos in the Cabinet Office after the statement from the Met etc. The list goes on and on.

 

[clapham_gull]

The birthday party is an irrelevance, it's the other after work parties, especially the one where loads of peeps were invited by email from the PPS; the two which took place on the end of the Duke of Edinburghs funeral, and the various Christmas bashes, that are far more serious.

I'm not surprised the Tories are trying to divert all the attention to the birthday party, because in isolation its not much of an issue.

Exactly, it's almost on par with the very early Department of Education full apology that in my opinion didn't require an apology at all.

They walked away from their distanced desks, went into the empty canteen because there was more room. Got thanked for their work, had a glass of wine and went home.

I think the problem with the Birthday party was more that it highlighted a complete absence of "Covid security" and general security where apparently anyone (from outside) could move around No 10 without challenge. Quite how an interior decorator (working on a "private flat") ended downstairs with everyone else is beyond me.

Definitely not a resigning issue though.