Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Partygate - Met Police Useless
Sue Grey independently investigated lockdown restriction breaches in January, and amassed a great deal of evidence. She was about to publish her report before the Met Police belatedly launched an investigation and the Grey report had to be severely redacted.
12 weeks later and the police have still not finished their investigations. Half the people investigated have now been fined, but not all of the gatherings have been looked at, and the police investigation is on going.
The Prime Minister has not been fined, but has not been cleared either.
What are the police playing at? Surely when they had all the evidence on a platter, it should not take over 3 months to conclude. Considering what is at stake, surely the Prime Minister (and Carrie) should have been prioritised to be looked at first, not last, to end the speculation and uncertainty.
Anyone agree that this has dragged on for far too long ?
12 weeks later and the police have still not finished their investigations. Half the people investigated have now been fined, but not all of the gatherings have been looked at, and the police investigation is on going.
The Prime Minister has not been fined, but has not been cleared either.
What are the police playing at? Surely when they had all the evidence on a platter, it should not take over 3 months to conclude. Considering what is at stake, surely the Prime Minister (and Carrie) should have been prioritised to be looked at first, not last, to end the speculation and uncertainty.
Anyone agree that this has dragged on for far too long ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"If all the police have is responses to their questionnaires then the recipients of those questionnaires have only themselves to blame for providing the police with the material to prosecute them."
Perhaps they compared the responses with the evidence previously gathered by Sue Gray as part of her investigation and responses from others alleged to have been at the same specific events?
Perhaps they compared the responses with the evidence previously gathered by Sue Gray as part of her investigation and responses from others alleged to have been at the same specific events?
'Was hardly bunga bunga, Boris was there for 10 mins!' Ferrari [& Khandro] calls for reality check:
https:/
https:/
//I'd like to know why they weren't shutting them down when they were actually happening - as they were everywhere else. //
Because these gatherings were attended only by people who worked together - and that happened in many, many offices. No invitations, no outsiders, just people who spent their days together anyway. Did you really expect the police to invade offices just on the off chance that the workers were drinking a glass of wine?
Because these gatherings were attended only by people who worked together - and that happened in many, many offices. No invitations, no outsiders, just people who spent their days together anyway. Did you really expect the police to invade offices just on the off chance that the workers were drinking a glass of wine?
Am no fan of Boris and think he was niaive and foolish.... but I agree pretty much with naomi for once. Lets face it.... if the same people were in the room but just talking work and maybe drinking tea & buscuits like in other offices/places of work there wouldnt have been an issue....and risks of covid transmission would have still been there
//Did you really expect the police to invade offices just on the off chance that the workers were drinking a glass of wine?//
Why not? They carried out many other operations aimed at catching people contravening the Covid regulations. For example, they intercepted two women taking a stroll in a deserted country park drinking a cup of coffee and issued them with fixed penalty notices for an "illegal gathering". Without a doubt their activities posed a far smaller risk of virus transmission than people unnecessarily gathered together in an office.
//if the same people were in the room but just talking work and maybe drinking tea & buscuits like in other offices/places of work there wouldnt have been an issue....and risks of covid transmission would have still been there//
I quite agree. That’s why the regulations were in many respects superficial window dressing. But whether they were or were not is not the point. The point is that everybody was (or should have been) bound by them and they were sold on the basis that the less people “gathered”, the lower the risk of virus transmission. There was simply no need for these people to gather as they did, a belief that the police have now established and emphasised by the issue of fixed penalty notices – and a view with which the recipients of those notices have seemingly agreed by paying them.
It is no secret that I was one of the most ardent opponents of many of the Covid regulations. I thought many of them were ill thought out and pointless. Apparently so did many senior politicians and their lackies because they chose to ignore them. Their moral authority to introduce similar measures again if they deem it necessary has been shot to pieces by their actions and in that respect I’m profoundly grateful for what they did.
Why not? They carried out many other operations aimed at catching people contravening the Covid regulations. For example, they intercepted two women taking a stroll in a deserted country park drinking a cup of coffee and issued them with fixed penalty notices for an "illegal gathering". Without a doubt their activities posed a far smaller risk of virus transmission than people unnecessarily gathered together in an office.
//if the same people were in the room but just talking work and maybe drinking tea & buscuits like in other offices/places of work there wouldnt have been an issue....and risks of covid transmission would have still been there//
I quite agree. That’s why the regulations were in many respects superficial window dressing. But whether they were or were not is not the point. The point is that everybody was (or should have been) bound by them and they were sold on the basis that the less people “gathered”, the lower the risk of virus transmission. There was simply no need for these people to gather as they did, a belief that the police have now established and emphasised by the issue of fixed penalty notices – and a view with which the recipients of those notices have seemingly agreed by paying them.
It is no secret that I was one of the most ardent opponents of many of the Covid regulations. I thought many of them were ill thought out and pointless. Apparently so did many senior politicians and their lackies because they chose to ignore them. Their moral authority to introduce similar measures again if they deem it necessary has been shot to pieces by their actions and in that respect I’m profoundly grateful for what they did.
// She said the drinking at work and party culture stemmed from a lack of leadership at the top.//
But the two things are somewhat unrelated.
Drinking at work is, ordinarily, not a criminal matter (though few organisations outside the civil service seem to permit it these days). It became a criminal matter (or at least "gathering" to do so did) when the Covid legislation was introduced. If Ms Grey is investigating whether Covid regulations were breached (which I believe is her brief) she has no business commenting on why a culture of drinking prevails in the Civil Service.
But the two things are somewhat unrelated.
Drinking at work is, ordinarily, not a criminal matter (though few organisations outside the civil service seem to permit it these days). It became a criminal matter (or at least "gathering" to do so did) when the Covid legislation was introduced. If Ms Grey is investigating whether Covid regulations were breached (which I believe is her brief) she has no business commenting on why a culture of drinking prevails in the Civil Service.
NJ, Sue Gray's terms of reference include the following,
"The primary purpose will be to establish swiftly a general understanding of the nature of the gatherings, including attendance, the setting and the purpose, with reference to adherence to the guidance in place at the time.
If required, the investigations will establish whether individual disciplinary action is warranted.
The work will be undertaken by officials in the Cabinet Office at the direction of the Cabinet Secretary, with support from the Government Legal Department.
The team will have access to all relevant records, and be able to speak to members of staff. As with all internal investigations, if during the course of the work any evidence emerges of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence, the matter will be referred to the police and the Cabinet Office’s work may be paused. Matters relating to adherence to the law are properly for the police to investigate and the Cabinet Office will liaise with them as appropriate.
Any matters relating to the conduct of Ministers should follow the process set out in the Ministerial Code in the normal way."
As she is also looking at internal disciplinary matters, it is not unreasonable for her to consider and then comment upon any perceived culture or circumstances leading to those disciplinary matters.
"The primary purpose will be to establish swiftly a general understanding of the nature of the gatherings, including attendance, the setting and the purpose, with reference to adherence to the guidance in place at the time.
If required, the investigations will establish whether individual disciplinary action is warranted.
The work will be undertaken by officials in the Cabinet Office at the direction of the Cabinet Secretary, with support from the Government Legal Department.
The team will have access to all relevant records, and be able to speak to members of staff. As with all internal investigations, if during the course of the work any evidence emerges of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence, the matter will be referred to the police and the Cabinet Office’s work may be paused. Matters relating to adherence to the law are properly for the police to investigate and the Cabinet Office will liaise with them as appropriate.
Any matters relating to the conduct of Ministers should follow the process set out in the Ministerial Code in the normal way."
As she is also looking at internal disciplinary matters, it is not unreasonable for her to consider and then comment upon any perceived culture or circumstances leading to those disciplinary matters.
// Sue Grey’s report is not due to be published until the police investigation is over, and with the Met police saying yesterday that more fines may be issued, that could take some time. The police are investigating 12 events but there only seem to be four events in relation to which it is known that people have already been fined. //
This could stretch on for several more months :-(
This could stretch on for several more months :-(
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.