ChatterBank0 min ago
Gray Report Further Delayed ?
27 Answers
https:/
Seems to be a lot of confusion around this issue
The longer this is delayed the more it begins to look as if a compromise is being concocted
From Sky News :
Met Police statement labelled 'absolute nonsense' by senior legal figure
More dissenting opinion from a prominent legal figure here, this time from Nazir Afzal OBE, former Chief Crown Prosecutor for North West England and previously chief executive of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners.
Notwithstanding possible explanations outlined in the previous post, he gives the Met's statement very short shrift - suggesting that "a purely factual report by Sue Gray cannot possibly prejudice a police investigation".
Another legal expert weighs in :
Top lawyer casts doubt on police claim that Sue Gray report could 'prejudice' investgation
The Met's statement has prompted an instant - and in some cases - strong reaction from various commentators.
A prominent theme in the wave of responses involves questions over the police's rationale in suggesting Sue Gray's report could in some way prejudice its investigation.
Barrister Adam Wagner points out he is not a criminal lawyer, but as a professor of law his view still carries weight.
And he joins others in highlighting the unusual nature of Scotland Yard's statement.
"How would a factual civil service report about events the police is investigating 'prejudice' their investigation?" he asks.
He points out (in an assumption that this journalist can confirm to be accurate) that "police don't, as far as I am aware, ask journalists not to report on ongoing *investigations* and often media will report on the factual circumstances surrounding a police investigation, then clam up once a charge has been brought."
"I suppose the police might argue that there is a possibility down the line of a jury trial e.g. if. there are misconduct in public office charges, but it still seems odd to say that Sue Gray's findings would at this very early stage 'prejudice' anything," he continues.
"And don't forget that most if not all of the offences at issue here (the coronavirus regulations offences) are 'summary only' offences, so no possibility of a jury trial. So why suppress parts of this report which itself will only refer those issues?"
Curiouser and curiouser
Seems to be a lot of confusion around this issue
The longer this is delayed the more it begins to look as if a compromise is being concocted
From Sky News :
Met Police statement labelled 'absolute nonsense' by senior legal figure
More dissenting opinion from a prominent legal figure here, this time from Nazir Afzal OBE, former Chief Crown Prosecutor for North West England and previously chief executive of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners.
Notwithstanding possible explanations outlined in the previous post, he gives the Met's statement very short shrift - suggesting that "a purely factual report by Sue Gray cannot possibly prejudice a police investigation".
Another legal expert weighs in :
Top lawyer casts doubt on police claim that Sue Gray report could 'prejudice' investgation
The Met's statement has prompted an instant - and in some cases - strong reaction from various commentators.
A prominent theme in the wave of responses involves questions over the police's rationale in suggesting Sue Gray's report could in some way prejudice its investigation.
Barrister Adam Wagner points out he is not a criminal lawyer, but as a professor of law his view still carries weight.
And he joins others in highlighting the unusual nature of Scotland Yard's statement.
"How would a factual civil service report about events the police is investigating 'prejudice' their investigation?" he asks.
He points out (in an assumption that this journalist can confirm to be accurate) that "police don't, as far as I am aware, ask journalists not to report on ongoing *investigations* and often media will report on the factual circumstances surrounding a police investigation, then clam up once a charge has been brought."
"I suppose the police might argue that there is a possibility down the line of a jury trial e.g. if. there are misconduct in public office charges, but it still seems odd to say that Sue Gray's findings would at this very early stage 'prejudice' anything," he continues.
"And don't forget that most if not all of the offences at issue here (the coronavirus regulations offences) are 'summary only' offences, so no possibility of a jury trial. So why suppress parts of this report which itself will only refer those issues?"
Curiouser and curiouser
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Stickybottle. 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.
One MP has tweeted :
First the police wouldn't investigate. Now they're saying their investigation means key details have to be left out of Sue Gray's report into lockdown parties.
People are going to see this as an establishment stitch-up and it's going to further undermine public trust.
Seems to sum it up succinctly !
First the police wouldn't investigate. Now they're saying their investigation means key details have to be left out of Sue Gray's report into lockdown parties.
People are going to see this as an establishment stitch-up and it's going to further undermine public trust.
Seems to sum it up succinctly !
A long police investigation is what Boris wanted all along because (1) it will delay any outcome. ( 2) even if the police come up with anything, it will just end up with a smack on the wrist. (3) it will give Boris time to bribe the public with goodies. It a nutshell, no 10 and the Met are in it together. Corrupt and deceitful.
It is shocking how the Police have allowed themselves to be used by the Government.
First they were told by Raab at the beginning of December that the offences were too old to be investigated and they did nothing for 5 weeks.
Then when the PM was running out of time and the internal investigation was about to conclude, the Police sudden take an interest.
The Police are now insisting the report be watered down and the delay in it being published are due to redactions having to be made.
Boris hangs on for a few more days/weeks thanks to Baroness Cressida Dick as she will soon be known.
First they were told by Raab at the beginning of December that the offences were too old to be investigated and they did nothing for 5 weeks.
Then when the PM was running out of time and the internal investigation was about to conclude, the Police sudden take an interest.
The Police are now insisting the report be watered down and the delay in it being published are due to redactions having to be made.
Boris hangs on for a few more days/weeks thanks to Baroness Cressida Dick as she will soon be known.
god ABers are so gullible
My answer to Andy posts which was needlessly deleted
on the day's randy andy thread
can very valuably be recycled ( got that idea from Naomi)
is any one struck by the irony ( yes ! irony) of NOT discussing Boris and partygate on spurious grounds. OO it may be a police investigation and so we are not allowed to discuss....
we are: it is only after charges we cant.
the wise people who rule us are trading on our ignorance and the mods and the spare ed's
civil cases here are decided by a judge and so discussion on the internet is VERY unlikely to sway a judge - they so wise you see, like NJ -
and we hear whilst we are at it - that the Gray report is gonna be redacted big time on account of interfering with police investigations
Prince Andrew's case ( the rand's) is being heard in New York and so it is extremely unlikely that discussion here can sway anything
(including statement that the judge hearing the case is clearly biassed)
Finally.... Judge Judy - a case cannot beget a case - and since Andy H' s comment was about a case, it is unlikely the lover-Prince or lovely Prince would have a case for libel. British rule is - "interest rei publicae finis ad litem" - but Judge judy's is better.
so basically le it all hang out !
you have nothing to fear xc fear ( oh and the crazy mods on AB, random dleeters all of them)
My answer to Andy posts which was needlessly deleted
on the day's randy andy thread
can very valuably be recycled ( got that idea from Naomi)
is any one struck by the irony ( yes ! irony) of NOT discussing Boris and partygate on spurious grounds. OO it may be a police investigation and so we are not allowed to discuss....
we are: it is only after charges we cant.
the wise people who rule us are trading on our ignorance and the mods and the spare ed's
civil cases here are decided by a judge and so discussion on the internet is VERY unlikely to sway a judge - they so wise you see, like NJ -
and we hear whilst we are at it - that the Gray report is gonna be redacted big time on account of interfering with police investigations
Prince Andrew's case ( the rand's) is being heard in New York and so it is extremely unlikely that discussion here can sway anything
(including statement that the judge hearing the case is clearly biassed)
Finally.... Judge Judy - a case cannot beget a case - and since Andy H' s comment was about a case, it is unlikely the lover-Prince or lovely Prince would have a case for libel. British rule is - "interest rei publicae finis ad litem" - but Judge judy's is better.
so basically le it all hang out !
you have nothing to fear xc fear ( oh and the crazy mods on AB, random dleeters all of them)
Families accuse Met of breaking public trust :
Following the Met Police's statement about the Sue Gray report this morning the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group is accusing the force of having "broken the trust of the public".
Spokesperson Fran Hall says the Met first refused "to investigate flagrant law breaking" and is now "demanding any other investigations hide the most serious illegalities happening at Downing Street".
I wonder how many of the general public concur with that view ?
Following the Met Police's statement about the Sue Gray report this morning the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group is accusing the force of having "broken the trust of the public".
Spokesperson Fran Hall says the Met first refused "to investigate flagrant law breaking" and is now "demanding any other investigations hide the most serious illegalities happening at Downing Street".
I wonder how many of the general public concur with that view ?
Its so obvious that the police investigation is one big load of BS, to delay the obvious outcome of the report. Why would any force waste time investigating an already proven breaking of rules. Boris apologized to the Queen, and they already hold the evidence in photo form of the party in the garden. CORRUPT
An internal inquiry by a department or company should not be hindered from reporting its findings by a possible future prosecution. Otherwise, what is the point.
Reporting a crime has taken place cannot be banned from being reported. The police investigation is a entirely different matter, and their job is to gather evidence for a prosecution.
To deliberately mix up the internal Inquiry and the Police investigation is very suspicious and worrying.
Reporting a crime has taken place cannot be banned from being reported. The police investigation is a entirely different matter, and their job is to gather evidence for a prosecution.
To deliberately mix up the internal Inquiry and the Police investigation is very suspicious and worrying.
this has been addressed graphically...
https:/
https:/
The former director of public prosecutions Lord Ken Macdonald has said today's police statement about what should be included in Sue Gray’s report is "surprising and quite unhelpful".
Lord Macdonald tells BBC Radio 4's World at One it's a "bit of a stretch" to suggest that publishing the Gray report might tip off people in advance before the police have questioned them.
"These people all know what they have done or haven't done, and I very much doubt that anything Sue Gray says is going to come as any great surprise to any of the protagonists," he says.
Macdonald says it seems like a "very cautious" - perhaps overly cautious - move by the Met Police in the face of "powerful" public interest in the publication of the report.
He adds that it's "highly undesirable" that this situation is left hanging in the air "a moment longer than necessary".
Seems to know what he is talking about !
Lord Macdonald tells BBC Radio 4's World at One it's a "bit of a stretch" to suggest that publishing the Gray report might tip off people in advance before the police have questioned them.
"These people all know what they have done or haven't done, and I very much doubt that anything Sue Gray says is going to come as any great surprise to any of the protagonists," he says.
Macdonald says it seems like a "very cautious" - perhaps overly cautious - move by the Met Police in the face of "powerful" public interest in the publication of the report.
He adds that it's "highly undesirable" that this situation is left hanging in the air "a moment longer than necessary".
Seems to know what he is talking about !
