Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Govt & Police colluding to cover up?

63 replies

Blinkingbatshit · 28/01/2022 09:51

Ok, so the police are requesting minimal reference to law breaking in Sue Gray’s report…..is this A. Because they’ve found evidence of criminal behaviour and are keeping it out of the public domain in order to not prejudice a prosecution or B. Because they’re colluding with govt to ‘make it go away’? Either way I think we can say that there should be no confidence in BoJo or his sleazy team.

OP posts:
BarrowInFurnessRailwayStation · 28/01/2022 09:54

I'd like to believe it was A, but knowing this lot, anything's possible.

I have no faith in the investigation.

IpanemaPeaHen · 28/01/2022 09:54

It looks that way doesn’t it. Be interesting to hear from any criminal lawyers on mn regarding the actions of the MET.

Original poster
Blinkingbatshit · 28/01/2022 10:08

Yes - seems none of them are able to act with integrity…..you’d think the rest of the party & its members would realise they are being tarred with the same brush and do something about it but they seem disturbingly apathetic to it…

OP posts:
RancidOldHag · 28/01/2022 10:18

I wouid hope for A, because a fair trial wouid be hard to achieve if all the evidence is in the public domain and names were named

We need to see as full a version as possible, and any redactions need to be explained - even ifhthat explanation can only be 'passed to the police for further investigation'. Then it either comes out after investigation and judicial proceedings into breaches are concluded, or if the investigation does not find crimes then published in full at any point when a decision is made that we're were no crimes or punishable breaches (were all breaches actually crimes that need court action? I have the vague idea that some were breaches led to fixed penality notices?)

Original poster
Blinkingbatshit · 28/01/2022 10:23

But surely anyone named, even as a potential prosecution, should be put on leave until criminal proceedings are over? When it comes to government surely transparency is more important. Looking back at previous issues like Aitken & Archer there wasn’t much the public didn’t already know by the time it got to trial but on the basic evidence available it was clear their positions were untenable beforehand and they resigned.

OP posts:
EvilPea · 28/01/2022 10:25

It has to be A surely?
I mean the police investigation now means every question about the report or parties will be replied
“we have to wait for the police to investigate, but we’ve got world beating vaccines and the fastest growingeconomy”

ChicCroissant · 28/01/2022 10:29

Another option is that the report will show the Police to have been incompetant in not investigating the breaches earlier, because I don't think they are going to come out of it well either. There are Police at Downing Street all the time, they were quick enough to give evidence to the Inquiry but not to take any action at the time? The report isn't going to cover them with glory either!

Sartre · 28/01/2022 10:30

I thought so too. What will actually be in the report if she isn’t allowed to report on any of the illegal parties? They were all illegal so surely it will just be an empty page now.

MrsPsmalls · 28/01/2022 10:32

Dame Dick absolutely buzzing on twitter and everyone thinks it's a cover up.

Wreath21 · 28/01/2022 10:34

Well, they are currently trying to distract the public with an attack on 'benefit scroungers', which they think will work the way it did previously. It may not, this time, as more and more people are starting to realise that making the benefit system as punitive and humiliating as possible doesn't do any good.
I think they will be casting around for another scapegoat/distraction - they've tried the BBC, they've tried 'woke-bashing', LGBTQ people are always a good fallback, so it's probably going to be the turn of drug dealers and street crimes...

WeAreTheHeroes · 28/01/2022 10:34

A - Sue Gray can redact her report and that's probably what's going on now.

Hospedia · 28/01/2022 10:43

The best we can hope for now is that some enterprising person in Sue Grey's office will leak the report before it gets buried.

WhatScratch · 28/01/2022 10:48

B. Not the individual officers investigating but the upper management. At that level it’s pure politics.

As many commentators and journalists pointed out before the police started this investigation, everyone had to get past police checkpoints to enter Downing Street. The police knew that there were parties going on. Then they chose not to investigate. Now they’ve chosen to interfere with Sue Grey’s report to ‘avoid prejudice to their enquiry.’ It’s the top of the Met (Cressida Dick), the Conservative party leadership and people whose names we’ll never know.

There was a perfect example of how politics is done from the Bury MP who crossed the floor recently. He was told by a Conservative party whip to vote with the government on free school meals or lose the funding for a new high school that his area desperately needed.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-60070621

Carrot and stick

SuspiciousHumanoid · 28/01/2022 10:48

It’s B of course.

Crimesean · 28/01/2022 10:49

Yes, I believe they are colluding. The longer they can drag this out, the smaller the chance of Boris getting canned - interest will inevitably die down, as it does with anything.

WhatScratch · 28/01/2022 10:53

Even if Boris goes, the Conservatives will still have control of the funding of the Met Police.

DrDreReturns · 28/01/2022 10:54

Cressida Dick has presided over loads of fuck ups and the Tories reappointed her despite everyone knowing a change of leadership was required. I think it's a cover up, the timing is very fishy. They've probably put pressure on her (you owe us etc.)
I really hope someone leaks the report.

Curiousmouse · 28/01/2022 10:59

The met will look terrible if the report shows lots of criminal activity, because they should have noticed it whilst standing at the door! They didn't "see" anything, apparently. They choose not to investigate, despite numerous reports of wrongdoing. And now, at the last minute, they want a redaction of key parts.

I bet they do. Cover up.

FacebookPhotos · 28/01/2022 11:14

It has to be B. The offenses do not warrant a jury trial so I really don't see how it could prejudice a prosecution. Unless they mean it would prejudice their own officers who are investigating the case and already have access to all of the information in the report.

Thankyoupeter · 28/01/2022 11:26

@FacebookPhotos

It has to be B. The offenses do not warrant a jury trial so I really don't see how it could prejudice a prosecution. Unless they mean it would prejudice their own officers who are investigating the case and already have access to all of the information in the report.
I'm not so sure as there could be offences of misconduct in a public office and that is a crown court case.
Thankyoupeter · 28/01/2022 11:37

But I should add that I agree it's B because I think the plan is to dish out a few fixed penalties, sack a few staff and hope we are all happy

WildRosie · 28/01/2022 11:40

The Home Secretary should appoint a different police force to investigate the whole shitshow if there is any evidence of impropriety at No.10 or the Metropolitan Police. Let's see how quickly that happens.

Moonopoly · 28/01/2022 11:47

Looks like a job for AC12…

Grotbag81 · 28/01/2022 11:49

B - damage limitation for all concerned.

Original poster
Blinkingbatshit · 28/01/2022 11:51

@Moonopoly - 😂! @WildRosie - yes, maybe a police force other than the met should be dealing with this - that’s a good point!!

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread