Govt & Police colluding to cover up?

[Blinkingbatshit]

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.

Sickening

[quote Blinkingbatshit]**@Moonopoly* - 😂! @WildRosie* - yes, maybe a police force other than the met should be dealing with this - that’s a good point!![/quote]
Only if there is evidence of wrongdoing. I'm not sure if it is the Home Secretary or perhaps the Attorney General who can make such a decision. I would hope the latter if a conflict of interest were to be avoided.

Of course it's collusion - would you expect anything else from these people?

But who can we rely on at this point to step in and say ‘you’re all a bunch of rabid lying numbskulls (polite version), you’ve lied in the Houses of Parliament and been caught out, you have lost your ability to fulfil your position, go’ - can the attorney general do this?! The fact that they won an election and have a term in office doesn’t mean you keep it if you’re shown to have done wrong (which I don’t think anyone in their right mind can now negate!). What is the British equivalent of impeachment and who can do it?

@Blinkingbatshit

But who can we rely on at this point to step in and say ‘you’re all a bunch of rabid lying numbskulls (polite version), you’ve lied in the Houses of Parliament and been caught out, you have lost your ability to fulfil your position, go’ - can the attorney general do this?! The fact that they won an election and have a term in office doesn’t mean you keep it if you’re shown to have done wrong (which I don’t think anyone in their right mind can now negate!). What is the British equivalent of impeachment and who can do it?

Maybe the House of Commons could petition the Queen to dissolve Parliament. Only the monarch has that power. Beyond that, I don't know.

Dame Cressida Dick courtesy of the government

I love how the people who were screeching "The Police Should Investigate!" are now screeching "What, there's rule of law?! People have rights if the Police investigate & Due process exists? The Police don't act as Judge & Jury & deliver justice fully in 2 days? How dare they!"

ps: and if you want BoJo out THEN PETITION YOUR MP.
A man with no shame will go for no less a reason then being forced out.

Better yet, punish the Tories cruelly at local elections in May.

Lets hope it is a speedy investigation where everyone is held to the same rules and fines as the general public, the report is published & nothing is kicked into the long grass.

There are lots of dead cats floating around and now I think the whole thing is heading for the long grass. The public will lose interest and in one bound BJ will be in the clear!

I hope the police are going to investigate and potentially prosecute all the members of the public that had lock down parties, lock ins in pubs etc, would save them having to actually do something about real crime.

@lljkk

ps: and if you want BoJo out THEN PETITION YOUR MP. A man with no shame will go for no less a reason then being forced out.

Better yet, punish the Tories cruelly at local elections in May.

I think they will be in for a bloody nose in May. Let the useless lump continue to limp on. Let politicians continue to damage their own reputation by defending the useless lump. It all just damages the Tories and that warms my cockles. They've been in govt for so long that they've become complacent.

But who can we rely on at this point to step in and say ‘you’re all a bunch of rabid lying numbskulls (polite version), you’ve lied in the Houses of Parliament and been caught out, you have lost your ability to fulfil your position, go’

In practice only MPs are able to unseat a government. Given that opposition parties by definition want to do that pretty much all the time, the country is reliant on enough tory MPs to stand against Johnson. They can do this in three ways:

1 - put private pressure on him to resign (I just cannot see this working - the man appear determined to stay no matter what)

2 - vote against him in a confidence motion in the House of Commons (it'd have to be at least 39 of them and they won't do this as it would be career suicide and could lead to a general election)

3 - put in letters of no confidence in him as leader of the tory party (this only needs 54 to act, but it is a risk because if he won a confidence vote of tory MPs they couldn't try again for a year)

Could there be any possible charges of interferring with an investigation or something that is more serious?

B. It’s like reading the script of an episode of Yes Prime Minister. I just hope come May voters will still remember that their own families were kept apart by the people who made, then flagrantly flouted the rules.

I don’t think voters care, or at least I don’t think that the Conservatives think that voters care.

The brazen corruption of this government is astounding. First there are the vast sums of money handed off to friends of friends in the form of Covid contracts - £10.5 billion awarded directly without any competition.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/56174954

Then the Patterson scandal

-The Parliamentary Standards Committee investigated a Conservative MP and found that he had misused his position to benefit two companies he had worked for
-They recommended he serve a 30 day suspension from Parliament
-The government responded by attacking the Commissioner and the process and ‘whipping’ (forcing its MPs to vote with the Goverment) it’s MPs to vote against the suspension

So one of their MPs is found guilty of abusing his position and the Conservatives response is to attack the investigation and refuse to punish the MP.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59154221

This isn’t about Boris and the cabinet breaking Covid rules that they created. This is about the Conservatives feeling that they are utterly untouchable and that they can do whatever they want without consequences. The terrible thing is it seems that they’re right. People are still going to vote for them.

Just to underline that, 250 Conservative MPs voted against the 30 day suspension of one of their MPs who had be found, by the Parliamentary body created to investigate these issues, to have used his position repeatedly to benefit two companies he worked for.

It’s not just corruption, it’s bare-faced, unabashed corruption.

Sue Grey”s ass pocket will be bulging after this “investigation”. They all piss in the same pot

It’s beyond! Murder investigations have been solved quicker. Come on how hard can it be even if you have to interview and take phones from everyone who works there, plus CCTV and police/records of the building.

Even if was a party the most the criminal element would be is a fine that everyone else got. So not like it will be on going court case with jury’s and the like. Police should have for 7-10 days then we all get read. Fine whatever job done. We could have years of this.

@Hospedia

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.

Where is the fucking press? That's what I want to know

Cressida Dick had her appointment controversially renewed in September by Priti Patel. She presided over the investigation of the non-existent VIP paedophile ring, saying of the (eventually convicted) accuser that his evidence was ‘true and fair’. She was in charge of racially profiled stop and search. And she was in charge when an innocent civilian was shot deaf by the Met (De Menendes).

So, she has a lot of skeletons in her closet and a nice fat salary to protect.

It seems the ‘crimes’ being investigated will probably cost perpetrators a £100 ‘ticket’.

Sue Grey’s report, OTOH, carries real weight.

Looks like some very macchivelian plotting to me….

Actual lawyers on twitter are asking how can publishing the report prejudice an investigation? It can only be prejudiced if it's going to a jury

twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1486984732386676737?t=BmLw1nfg7P120a6ze2-9tg&s=19

I don’t think it means that, I think they are simply stating they are restricting the investigation to the Covid laws only. So for example, if they were snorting cocaine and smoking some opium at the wine party in the garden...the report is to ignore the breaking of Class A Drugs Use laws. This doesn’t mean they would not prosecute, or cover up, just that it’s not strictly relevant to the public inquiry on whether the PM broke covid laws.

[quote GreenLunchBox]Actual lawyers on twitter are asking how can publishing the report prejudice an investigation? It can only be prejudiced if it's going to a jury

twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1486984732386676737?t=BmLw1nfg7P120a6ze2-9tg&s=19[/quote]
They just think we're so stupid

A - but you do realise these 'party leaks' are just a HUGE cover-up.

They cover up the fact the government agreed to write off 4.3 BILLION of 5.8 BILLION fraudulent covid support claims through the various government loan and grant schemes? On the day Boris's birthday bash was top front page news, the above fact was buried on page 9.