To be really enjoying Boris Johnson's downfall?

[GrendelsGrandma]

I know he'll be replaced by someone equally awful and I know he's not quite gone yet, but I can't remember when I felt uplifted about politics and the ejection of this national embarrassment is warming my cockles. Anyone else feel the same?

[quote NiceShrubbery]Even if SG does find evidence of breach of Covid laws, it's apparently up to the Met to decide to pursue 😂. So looks like it'll be corrupt business as usual and more wiffly emails from constituency MPs.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/sue-gray-investigation[/quote]
A prosecution by the Met would be the icing on the cake. Johnson and his corrupt cronies gone would be enough for me. I’m not greedy.

After PMQs, the forgettable MP for Stoke on Trent? was wheeled out to tell us about the hefty wodge of cash handed to his area by a benevolent government. If I recall correctly this was to demonstrate the government commitment to leveling up. Made necessary by years of government cuts and underfunding it seemed an odd thing to brag about just then. Was this a warning to the unwise?

Florianus - no, Wakeford’s testimony is evidence. You and I may disagree about its weight or cogency but that is a different issue

Interesting to see MPs describing the Sue Gray investigation as “ independent” - it isn’t. It’s an internal investigation which is different.

Boris has very obviously lied to all of us and to parliament (more than once).

I see Savid Javid is now acknowledging that parties - he used that word - took place in Downing Street. From The Telegraph:

We do now know there were some parties. We know that because some of the people that were involved and broke the rules have come forward to say so,” he said.

”Of course things like this damage our democracy. From what we already know from the people who have come forward and apologised for the parties that took place, for example the one on the eve of Prince Philip’s funeral, that was completely wrong

“It was wrong in every single way. The way we now get through this is to get the facts out, get them on the table so we can all reach a judgment ourselves,” he added.

Apologies for the Clavinova-seque copy and paste.

Yes Alexandra as I understand it - if found to be in breach PM would be referred to the ministerial code - Johnson would have to decide whether to report himself to Lord Geildt (of wallpaper funding claims) and then decide what to do with LG's report.
And be investigated by the Met as a separate matter.
Not sure what would come first Met or ministerial code.

But I don't expect either to arise because I don't expect much from the initial report.

Making a false allegation is not evidence.

There is no reason to say that it is false, even in the absence of any other evidence.

It can only be argued that in the absence of other evidence it (e.g. other MPs come forward with similar claims, there is corroborating evidence) it doesn’t carry any weight.

It’s often difficult to prosecute rape and sexual assault cases because of lack of witnesses, but it doesn’t therefore follow that a false claim has been made, or that no cases are prosecuted and won.

In fact, the person concerned (William Wragg) won't even say if he has been threatened by the Chief Whip. He just says that he has heard that other MPs have been. It's just "Chinese Whispers" unless the emails and tape are produced in evidence.

@Florianus Does the same standard of evidence apply in other situations?

For example should we not believe someone when they say that they were never told that a party broke the law if there are no recordings of all the conversations they had that day?

@Blossomtoes don't worry the quote from Javid is relevant to the topic unlike Cut&Pasteanovas

Javid “It was wrong in every single way. The way we now get through this is to get the facts out, get them on the table so we can all reach a judgment ourselves,”

Mate - you've just said there were parties in No 10 that Johnson attended in the height of lockdown. What more is there we need to know? As Health Secretary you've just said "It was wrong in every single way" . Thanks, I've reached a judgment. Johnson broke lockdown rules as PM of the country. Only outcome should be that he leaves the office he has brought into disrepute - we cannot trust him to abide by the laws he helps set and enforce - he is unfit to lead the country.

So sick of Johnson's smoke & mirrors

Well I was, but now he’s changed the covid rules in a shamless move to dominate the headlines and bribe people into liking him again, and it’s worked 🤬

Everyone knows he’s corrupt and incompetent and breaks rules and lies, but if that means they can ditch a face mask in Tescos, people are prepared to overlook his flaws.

I judge the MPs who haven’t written letters of no confidence, I really do.

Sue Gray is famous for her independence

This is laughable. Its not an independent inquiry. Its an internal inquiry. Whether Sue Gray is famous for anything is neither here nor there. You are not kidding anyone.

@UnconditionalSurrender

Sue Gray is famous for her independence

This is laughable. Its not an independent inquiry. Its an internal inquiry. Whether Sue Gray is famous for anything is neither here nor there. You are not kidding anyone.

It’s supposed to be impartial, that’s why Simon Case was kicked off it.

@jgw1

In fact, the person concerned (William Wragg) won't even say if he has been threatened by the Chief Whip. He just says that he has heard that other MPs have been. It's just "Chinese Whispers" unless the emails and tape are produced in evidence.

@Florianus Does the same standard of evidence apply in other situations?

For example should we not believe someone when they say that they were never told that a party broke the law if there are no recordings of all the conversations they had that day?

Yes, not least because we now know that the person who warned that the party should not go ahead sent the message to the party organiser (Martin Reynolds) and not to Boris Johnson.

If you are just patient and wait for Sue Gray's report next week it will save you getting in such a muddle about what happened.

Sue Gray's personal qualities are irrelevant - her investigation is not an independent investigation.

Getting Sue Gray to head up this inquiry is just a case of marking your own homework.

Yes, not least because we now know that the person who warned that the party should not go ahead sent the message to the party organiser (Martin Reynolds) and not to Boris Johnson

Progress! You’re no longer denying it was a party then, @Florianus.

Yes, not least because we now know that the person who warned that the party should not go ahead sent the message to the party organiser (Martin Reynolds) and not to Boris Johnson.

But do we really know that if Sue Gray didn't tell us?

@CryingAtTheDiscotheque

Florianus - no, Wakeford’s testimony is evidence. You and I may disagree about its weight or cogency but that is a different issue

Interesting to see MPs describing the Sue Gray investigation as “ independent” - it isn’t. It’s an internal investigation which is different.

What proof do you have that Wakeford has not simply made it up? Without evidence, it is merely an allegation. An allegation is not evidence.

@Blossomtoes

Yes, not least because we now know that the person who warned that the party should not go ahead sent the message to the party organiser (Martin Reynolds) and not to Boris Johnson

Progress! You’re no longer denying it was a party then, @Florianus.

I have no idea what it was. Nor do you. I doubt that anyone will ever be able to decide since the invitation was not to a party but to drinks.

Florianus you are confusing evidence with proof.

At trial, two witnesses contradict each other. Witness A is believed, witness B's story is rejected. Witness B's statement is still evidence.

On the subject of evidence, unfortunately Sue Gray has no power to compel witnesses nor to require the production of documents. I imagine you will think that this means her findings are unlikely to be persuasive?

@Zonder

Yes, not least because we now know that the person who warned that the party should not go ahead sent the message to the party organiser (Martin Reynolds) and not to Boris Johnson.

But do we really know that if Sue Gray didn't tell us?

Robert Peston claims that Sue Gray has found the relevant email. If true, I dare say she will include it in her report. Just be patient and see.

I have no idea what it was. Nor do you. I doubt that anyone will ever be able to decide since the invitation was not to a party but to drinks

But you’ve spent the best part of a week arguing the toss that it wasn’t a party!😂 You’ve obviously been to the Johnson school of consistency. I hope you never have to give evidence in court, a decent lawyer would tie you know knots in no time.

Sue Gray's inquiry (i) is not independent (ii) requires her to investigate people more senior than herself/her bosses (iii) aims only to reach a "swift" and "general" understanding of the nature of the gatherings (iv) has no power to require witnesses to attend interviews or to disclose documents, and therefore is likely to be based on incomplete evidence.

You'll forgive me if I'm not holding my breath for her "findings"

@CryingAtTheDiscotheque

Florianus you are confusing evidence with proof.

At trial, two witnesses contradict each other. Witness A is believed, witness B's story is rejected. Witness B's statement is still evidence.

On the subject of evidence, unfortunately Sue Gray has no power to compel witnesses nor to require the production of documents. I imagine you will think that this means her findings are unlikely to be persuasive?

As I have already said, a witness IS evidence. There is no witness who heard what Wakeford alleges. It is an allegation, not evidence.

If the recording and/or emails that are claimed to exist but have never been seen actually appear, then there is evidence.