Ambassadors Worried About Technology...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 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.
// I hope no one resigns. Load of petty nonsense.//
you are being far too hard on yourself, N !
ter daah
oh I see - sozza, you are referring to the gas attacks in Mariupol - that is more like it - ter daah again
I kinda feel the politicians owe us to behave lawfully
and no in an anonymised fashion
my DUI was all over the papers and then the MD got involved
no I was not employed as a driver at that time
us proles - we expect it
you are being far too hard on yourself, N !
ter daah
oh I see - sozza, you are referring to the gas attacks in Mariupol - that is more like it - ter daah again
I kinda feel the politicians owe us to behave lawfully
and no in an anonymised fashion
my DUI was all over the papers and then the MD got involved
no I was not employed as a driver at that time
us proles - we expect it
"Load of petty nonsense"
Even if you think that breaking rules (which caused so much pain to so many who observed them) is 'petty' - surely you can't believe that telling lie after lie about your behaviour to the House of Commons is also 'petty'?
He needs to go - and it may well be Sunak's resignation that takes both of them down - Sunak appears to be utterly fed-up with being held to account and looks set to sail off into the wide blue yonder of California.
Even if you think that breaking rules (which caused so much pain to so many who observed them) is 'petty' - surely you can't believe that telling lie after lie about your behaviour to the House of Commons is also 'petty'?
He needs to go - and it may well be Sunak's resignation that takes both of them down - Sunak appears to be utterly fed-up with being held to account and looks set to sail off into the wide blue yonder of California.
sp://Regarding your point - the difference between everyone else and Johnsons is that he lead the government inflicting he rules on the rest of us.//
Effectively the government 'inflicts' all the rules & laws that govern us (that's why it's called the government!) including speed restrictions on the highways.
I'm sure many MPs pick up speeding tickets like most of us do, pay their fines or penalties, & the public hear nothing of it.
I see little difference to what has happened here, except their wrongdoings have taken place in the public eye.
Let us move on.
Effectively the government 'inflicts' all the rules & laws that govern us (that's why it's called the government!) including speed restrictions on the highways.
I'm sure many MPs pick up speeding tickets like most of us do, pay their fines or penalties, & the public hear nothing of it.
I see little difference to what has happened here, except their wrongdoings have taken place in the public eye.
Let us move on.
//I see little difference to what has happened here, except their wrongdoings have taken place in the public eye.//
There is one hell of a difference between this and speeding.
The Covid legislation was among the most Draconian inflicted on the UK in peacetime. Arguably it was more Draconian in some respects than wartime regulations. At least during the war one could go to the pub and meet up with one's friends and family. It was not "ordinary" legislation. It criminalised perfectly acceptable everyday activities and forcibly closed businesses for lengthy periods - closures which turned out to be permanent for many of them. Much of it had no real scientific evidence for its justification and none of it received proper Parliamentary scrutiny.
This bunch of charlatans and shysters knew exactly what they were doing. They were having after hours (and in some cases, during hours) booze-ups. These were simple pleasures which had been denied to the rest of the population. There were exceptions in the legislation for employees to "gather" when it was necessary for work purposes. These gatherings were not necessary. They were often "leaving dos" and other people were not permitted to have them. In fact, many people could not participate in far more important "leaving dos". Because of the legislation many could not even hold the hands of their loved ones as they died. One of these "work meetings" (with copious helpings of alcohol) actually took place on the eve of the Duke of Edinburgh's funeral. The following day the 94 year old monarch sat alone and masked, away from her family, as the funeral service of her husband of 70 years took place.
Lawmakers should never be lawbreakers, but of course occasionally they are. This lot deliberately chose to defy Draconian legislation that they had inflicted on everybody else which criminalised ordinary behaviour. There is a world of difference between exceeding the speed limit, getting caught and paying the fine and ignoring harsh legislation which is causing untold stress, grief and hardship to everybody else and then trying to excuse it by using an inappropriate statutory defence.
There is one hell of a difference between this and speeding.
The Covid legislation was among the most Draconian inflicted on the UK in peacetime. Arguably it was more Draconian in some respects than wartime regulations. At least during the war one could go to the pub and meet up with one's friends and family. It was not "ordinary" legislation. It criminalised perfectly acceptable everyday activities and forcibly closed businesses for lengthy periods - closures which turned out to be permanent for many of them. Much of it had no real scientific evidence for its justification and none of it received proper Parliamentary scrutiny.
This bunch of charlatans and shysters knew exactly what they were doing. They were having after hours (and in some cases, during hours) booze-ups. These were simple pleasures which had been denied to the rest of the population. There were exceptions in the legislation for employees to "gather" when it was necessary for work purposes. These gatherings were not necessary. They were often "leaving dos" and other people were not permitted to have them. In fact, many people could not participate in far more important "leaving dos". Because of the legislation many could not even hold the hands of their loved ones as they died. One of these "work meetings" (with copious helpings of alcohol) actually took place on the eve of the Duke of Edinburgh's funeral. The following day the 94 year old monarch sat alone and masked, away from her family, as the funeral service of her husband of 70 years took place.
Lawmakers should never be lawbreakers, but of course occasionally they are. This lot deliberately chose to defy Draconian legislation that they had inflicted on everybody else which criminalised ordinary behaviour. There is a world of difference between exceeding the speed limit, getting caught and paying the fine and ignoring harsh legislation which is causing untold stress, grief and hardship to everybody else and then trying to excuse it by using an inappropriate statutory defence.
Newjudge... regarding your earlier post quoting mine.
The questionnaires were to get more detail given that the civil service enquiry had already found these people were around in some capacity...eg signing in books or whatever a dperhaps cctv footage.anditwas a fixed penalty notice notacoury hearing where barristers xxhallenge anything that isnt 100'% proof and look for get clauses on technicalities.
If it had been any other works party though the met police wouldn't of been interested in going back 18 month's
The questionnaires were to get more detail given that the civil service enquiry had already found these people were around in some capacity...eg signing in books or whatever a dperhaps cctv footage.anditwas a fixed penalty notice notacoury hearing where barristers xxhallenge anything that isnt 100'% proof and look for get clauses on technicalities.
If it had been any other works party though the met police wouldn't of been interested in going back 18 month's
//..anditwas a fixed penalty notice notacoury hearing where barristers xxhallenge anything that isnt 100'% proof and look for get clauses on technicalities.//
Yes bob. I'm quite aware of the processes involved.
My point is, why were these suspects issued with questionnaires? If, as you suggest, there was no definite proof of transgressions, why send a question & answer sheet to those suspected of criminal activity? Interview them (under PACE regulations), yes, but why a questionnaire?
If the only purpose was to get them to incriminate themselves all the suspects had to do was to decline to complete them, refuse to pay any fixed penalty offered and see the matter heard in court. There, the prosecution's evidence would be properly tested. Any "technicalities" would be available for the defendant to exploit and any deficiencies in the prosecutions evidence would be highlighted.
Yes bob. I'm quite aware of the processes involved.
My point is, why were these suspects issued with questionnaires? If, as you suggest, there was no definite proof of transgressions, why send a question & answer sheet to those suspected of criminal activity? Interview them (under PACE regulations), yes, but why a questionnaire?
If the only purpose was to get them to incriminate themselves all the suspects had to do was to decline to complete them, refuse to pay any fixed penalty offered and see the matter heard in court. There, the prosecution's evidence would be properly tested. Any "technicalities" would be available for the defendant to exploit and any deficiencies in the prosecutions evidence would be highlighted.
The 'pettiness' of the crime isn't the big question. It's lying to the HoC. It's the cover up that's much worse the the crime itself.
Just like Watergate - it wasn't the break-in that caused Nixon to fall but the subsequent cover-up.
(And before anyone says it - no Partygate and Watergate themselves are not comparable - only the subsequent political fall-out).
Just like Watergate - it wasn't the break-in that caused Nixon to fall but the subsequent cover-up.
(And before anyone says it - no Partygate and Watergate themselves are not comparable - only the subsequent political fall-out).
//How "draconian" the laws were is really is irrelevant.//
I disagree. Just as an aside, you can't go to prison for speeding, no matter how fast you go or how often you commit the offence. The maximum penalty is a fine of £1,000 (£2,500 if on a motorway). The normal disposal for the vast majority of cases is a fine of £100. Some offences under the Covid legislation attracted fines of up to £10,000. In fact, because of the way it was drafted, that was the maximum fixed penalty. If a case went to court Magistrates could impose an unlimited fine.
However, the prospective punishment isn't why, in my view, the legislation was Draconian. It criminalised normal human behaviour. It made an offence out of meeting people, out of inviting people into your house, out of operating a legitimate business. It criminalised exactly the sort of normal human behaviour that the politicians and their aides (who framed the laws and enacted them) demonstrated. They did this with contempt for the populace. The laws, they believed, didn't apply to them because (in their opinion) these were "work related" gatherings. The only relationship to work those meetings bore was in that it seems this particular group of workers always gather together to drink and socialise. Well so does every other group - but they were not allowed to. To this day, the Prime Minister believes he committed no offence yet there is ample evidence of him, his political colleagues and members of his family (and a dog) gathering in such a way that would have had your local Plod round to your back garden in a trice. Many people were fined for similar "gatherings".
You may be happy to be treated with such contempt. I'm not. Mrs NJ and I missed out on two "important" birthday celebrations because of this nonsensical legislation. But our inconveniences are but nothing compared to the real stress and hardship endured by many others. All the while our illustrious leaders were busy pee-ing it up in the back garden of No 10 every time one of them moved on from one superfluous job to another.
I disagree. Just as an aside, you can't go to prison for speeding, no matter how fast you go or how often you commit the offence. The maximum penalty is a fine of £1,000 (£2,500 if on a motorway). The normal disposal for the vast majority of cases is a fine of £100. Some offences under the Covid legislation attracted fines of up to £10,000. In fact, because of the way it was drafted, that was the maximum fixed penalty. If a case went to court Magistrates could impose an unlimited fine.
However, the prospective punishment isn't why, in my view, the legislation was Draconian. It criminalised normal human behaviour. It made an offence out of meeting people, out of inviting people into your house, out of operating a legitimate business. It criminalised exactly the sort of normal human behaviour that the politicians and their aides (who framed the laws and enacted them) demonstrated. They did this with contempt for the populace. The laws, they believed, didn't apply to them because (in their opinion) these were "work related" gatherings. The only relationship to work those meetings bore was in that it seems this particular group of workers always gather together to drink and socialise. Well so does every other group - but they were not allowed to. To this day, the Prime Minister believes he committed no offence yet there is ample evidence of him, his political colleagues and members of his family (and a dog) gathering in such a way that would have had your local Plod round to your back garden in a trice. Many people were fined for similar "gatherings".
You may be happy to be treated with such contempt. I'm not. Mrs NJ and I missed out on two "important" birthday celebrations because of this nonsensical legislation. But our inconveniences are but nothing compared to the real stress and hardship endured by many others. All the while our illustrious leaders were busy pee-ing it up in the back garden of No 10 every time one of them moved on from one superfluous job to another.
I've just seen the PM respond to his penalty on the news. He said he did not believe at the time that an offence had been committed but has now accepted the findings of the investigation and has paid his fixed penalty. He agreed that the electorate has a right to expect higher standards of its leaders.
At least he's moved on from total denial.
At least he's moved on from total denial.
NJ: //However, the prospective punishment isn't why, in my view, the legislation was Draconian. //
If you think about it, there can't be such a thing as "Draconian legislation", - Draconian penalties, yes, (shall I explain?).
And I said, quote, a "serious motoring offence, (for which a custodial sentence can apply)" unquote.
Drunk driving, killing someone, can most certainly bring a custodial sentence.
If you think about it, there can't be such a thing as "Draconian legislation", - Draconian penalties, yes, (shall I explain?).
And I said, quote, a "serious motoring offence, (for which a custodial sentence can apply)" unquote.
Drunk driving, killing someone, can most certainly bring a custodial sentence.
You can have both Draconian (i.e. unduly harsh) laws as well as Draconian punishment. The legislation was Draconian in that it criminalised everyday acceptable behaviour. Nobody would suggest it is Draconian to have a law which prohibits murder but they may not think quite the same about a law which prohibits who you can meet and how many people you can invite into your garden for a drink. But that's what these laws did.
Draconian punishment is different. I would say it is draconian to chop off someone's arm for stealing a loaf of bread, but the law against theft is not Draconian.
If you prefer, ignore the tern "Draconian" (lest we get mixed up with the Greek legislator from whom the term originates) and let's just use "unduly harsh". It is unduly harsh to tell the population how many people they can meet up with. It is the sort of thing you expect in a totalitarian state, not the UK.
Draconian punishment is different. I would say it is draconian to chop off someone's arm for stealing a loaf of bread, but the law against theft is not Draconian.
If you prefer, ignore the tern "Draconian" (lest we get mixed up with the Greek legislator from whom the term originates) and let's just use "unduly harsh". It is unduly harsh to tell the population how many people they can meet up with. It is the sort of thing you expect in a totalitarian state, not the UK.
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.