Boris Johnson, former Prime Minister

[honeybee13]

Adam Wagner agrees with you, TJ.

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

A little reminder from the article 50 thread 2 years ago:

 

"

Worth the minute or two it takes to read whatever 'slant' might be considered applied to it.

 

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/12/20/boris-johnson-is-planning-radical-changes-to-the-uk-constitution-here-are-the-ones-you-need-to-know-about/

"

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

never ending

 

Top Foreign Office civil servant apologises for misleading MPs over Nowzad emails

WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK

---

Sir Philip Barton said he had given ‘inadvertently inaccurate answers’.

 

 

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

On 27/01/2022 at 06:57, honeybee13 said:

This article from the Mail could make uncomfortable reading for anyone who could be interviewed by the Met over partygate. Mentions of prison sentences for lying.

 

Police warn Boris and the rulebreakers if you lie to us, you could go to prison | Daily Mail Online

WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK

---

Detectives will try to obtain material that has been withheld from Sue Gray's inquiry into the lockdown-breaking parties as part of the Met's criminal...

 

 

 

* yet the Met allegedly fist said :'It can be released in full and theres no issue

* then allegedly LATER said : Minimise references to the severe stuff

* Now allegedly want it heavily reduced and redacted

 

- So is it Dick or Johnson thats driving that?

 

... The first one seemed to be from Dick.

[honeybee13]

A heavily redacted version is due out, it seems.

 

As to your question, I'd say it's possibly Johnson driving it.

 

Sue Gray report: redacted version is imminent, say government sources | Boris Johnson | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Move follows anger after Met police asked civil servant to hold back details in her ‘partygate’ report

 

[tobyjugg2]

Met just announcing they didnt request any delay - thats a matter for the cabinet office

 

.. and isnt it johnson and the cabinet office senior staff who are involved in these breaches (alleged)?

 ... along with some onlooking met officers ..

Edited January 28, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

So, the only legitimate reason i can imagine for the redacting of that report is that there are serious crimes involved, like destruction of evidence or obstruction of a criminal investigation

 

.. and that beggars the question of why dick initially announced it was Ok for the report to be released. (and only dick could do that really although like Johnson, she could claim otherwise)

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

Seems Commander Roper 'the lead in the investigation' under Dick, the cabinet Office and Johnson has referred to these 'morre serious' crimes that  is requiring a report so redacted one would think it were Johnsons secret plans to run away if Russia invades Ukraine,

'would normally result in a fixed penalty notice'

 

One can read two things into that

1. That the serious breaches might only warrant a fixed penalty notice, and the redaction is a cover up

2. 'normally' .. aka other circustances like perverting the course of justice and destroying evidence

 

If its 1, then the Met needs its entire senior 'management' sacking, arresting and prosecuting

 

 

[honeybee13]

In a thorough investigation, more serious offences would probably emerge during the course of police interviews and research, I imagine.

 

Could it be that more junior people will get fixed penalty notices for attending without a reasonable excuse. Is that one FPN per party attended?

 

And more senior people could be 'done' for encouraging underlings to delete or conceal evidence. I've read that more junior members of staff are expected to tell everything they know to the Met, while they might have been economical with the truth with Sue Gray and kept some evidence back.

[honeybee13]

There's a new video from Led by Donkeys.

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

9 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

In a thorough investigation, more serious offences would probably emerge during the course of police interviews and research, I imagine.

 

Could it be that more junior people will get fixed penalty notices for attending without a reasonable excuse. Is that one FPN per party attended?

 

And more senior people could be 'done' for encouraging underlings to delete or conceal evidence. I've read that more junior members of staff are expected to tell everything they know to the Met, while they might have been economical with the truth with Sue Gray and kept some evidence back.

 

 

or perhaps individuals attending one party, others attending multiple unlawful 'events'  then others organising unlawful events,

and the most serious - destroying evidence, and perverting the course of justice

 

or what seems most likely, a cover up and whitewash

 

.. still waiting for the pics of Cress at the party to appear ...

[honeybee13]

From a Telegraph journo. So Carrie Antoinette didn't organise a birthday party for the PM because she asked staff to do it and offered to bring a cake. Hmmm.

 

https://twitter.com/HarryYorke1/status/1487179484801421321

 

[tobyjugg2]

Little doubt Nut Nut organized Johsnons birthday party - via telling others to do it of course.

and no doubt that Johnson would throw her and everyone involved to the dogs in a second to protect himself - now its out

 

What about all the other events?

All 'protected' by Met officers - who should have reported the events up the chain - unless directed not to.

 

Genuinely seems to me to be the Met covering its own backside again - and Johnsons as aside necessity.

Dick needs to be gone, along with her senior team, ... especially if she leaks all the dodgy info she must have on politicians.

 

Still waiting for something relatively trivial but blown up as far as possible to be leaked on Starmer from the Met (anonymously) in an attempt to redirect  attention from Dick and Johnson - both corrupt IMO

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

It actually gets worse if you review what seems to have happened

 

* Met officers signed in people to and guarded these parties

* The MET repeatedly REFUSED to investigate - despite their officers being there

* Then a parliamentary investigation was effectively FORCED to happen

 

* At which point the Met apparently say 'you can't release the details because we are now investigating for a couple of possible fixed penalties maybe as stated/ordered by the Cabinet office who we are investigating/protecting/whitewashing

 

Needs an independent investigation, carried out by another force, investigating the Mets involvement as well as the Parties/gatherings

with a very tight timescale for initial report and with suspensions resulting pending further investigations,

and with a cross party parliamentary commission overseeing which reports to Parliament NOT Johnson or the cabinet office being investigated.

 

 

 

[honeybee13]

Interesting thoughts from Charlie Falconer on the Sue Gray/Met police situation. He says there's not law stopping Sue Gray releasing the report or that requires the Met to request her not to.

 

‘Greased piglet’ Boris Johnson could evade justice due to the Met’s disastrous move | Charles Falconer | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

The needless decision to limit Sue Gray’s report on partygate may make its findings irrelevant and paralyses the country

 

[unclebulgaria67]

The reports that teams of Lawyers were in Downing Street, no doubt saying that they will argue about every point for months or years to come, may have led to a pause for thought.

 

Probably best to follow due process, even if it takes longer.

 

More allegations are being published in the media and I cannot see this stopping.

 

 

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

1 hour ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

 

Probably best to follow due process, even if it takes longer.

 

 

 

What process would that be?

Seems to be a lack of proper process to me

 

 

Grey says police request delay

Police say no they didn't

 

Reality seems to be

Police said content should be removed without asking for delay of what would then be a largely empty report - so in all but pedant-ia, they have BLOCKED the report

 

 

Police said they wouldn't investigate criminality, but seem to be clearly obstructing the results of a political report when they claim they are investigating 'fixed penalty notice' level events AFTER a political investigation which found evidence that the police couldn't or wouldn't despite having officers around these events.

 

- So how many people who receive fixed notices get 'discussing it with others' locked down by police?

 

If its more than a fixed notice claim and coverup by Cressida, we need to know that much at least - NOW

 

 

Edited January 30, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[unclebulgaria67]

Allow people to have right to reply in any reported information . 

 

If there is any offence being referred to, then allow usual legal process.

[tobyjugg2]

We'll see

 

... or more probably not until investigative journalists dig it all out ..

Edited January 30, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

Charlie Falconer's article deals with a lot of what you're saying.

 

My personal view is that this is can-kicking and that they naively think that if it's left to drift for long enough, the public will forget. I don't see this happening.

 

Meanwhile Johnson is trying to look important in the Ukraine problems while the important players like the US, France and Germany are pretty much ignoring him. There doesn't seem to be a problem that the PM and Truss can't make worse.

[tobyjugg2]

I have no idea what sort of 'lawful' (as Unc reefers) process they are using as excuse to block a government report

 

the argument that it will enable those involved to think up excuses sounds utter b*****ks to me given they have already denied everything, apparently deleted messages and references, and at least a few have lied through there teeth in Parliament.

 

ALL of which and more seem to me to be blatant misconduct in public office as a minimum

Edited January 30, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

looks like Johnson back to touting 'benefits of Brexit' ... undoubtedly to deter the ERG from submitting their letters, and for the same to lend him support to survive a no-confidence vote if others still submit letters.

 

He's lying of course - to everyone.

 

Looks like a last ditch chance for real tories to start reclaiming their party.

Labour managed it against Corbynand his ites. Can the tories against Johnson and the populists.

Edited January 31, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

Please let me know when you find some benefits then.

[tobyjugg2]

Lots of benefits for the EU, Australia, RoI ports and Japan already

 

.. benefits to UK shops serving the captive audience of miles of lorry Queues at English ports .. business is booming for those shops

 

Anyone whos bought a weeks shopping recently will have seen a 20-30% fall in their buying power

Inflation at its highest in 30 years - so get ready for significant mortgage rate increases

 

.. but dont wory, most of the richest (or is that Richyist) have apparently got far faaar richer

 

Johnson well on track to make voting waaaay harder

[tobyjugg2]

Oh and apparently the grey report, with any/all references to any significant criminality redacted handed to Johnson

- who will undoubtedly claim 'no criminality reported in the report' - so lets all jog on