Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I’m not defending anything. I am saying we should read the report first. Not exactly a revolutionary stance for me to take.
|
But yet you have no issues with the limited scope of the report*, or that Sue Gray cannot make a determination as to whether there is criminal liability, as she is not a court, and she cannot make an independent assessment of the application of non-legal guidance to her colleagues as she is not independent. The only things to be published are the ‘findings’ and not the report itself.
Most importantly, she can’t determine whether the PM or another Minister is in breach of the Ministerial Code, as she is not the PM.
So, the person who will decide if anything is done with the report is the person who would be most affected by the report…
It is an internal investigation by a civil servant, who reports to ministers, of other civil servants and various advisors/3rd parties. It is not a quasi-judicial process, and it has no independent standing. It is almost as if this investigation was structured to enable Ministers/Press Officers to leak to the press that they have been ‘
cleared’.
You were in HR - if there were complaints about your HR Director, would it have been accepted practice for him to write the terms of reference for the investigation, and then be the only one who could agree if the complaints had any merit?
You may wish to Google "independent" and "conflict of interest".
*
as previously highlighted by Sephiroth
https://assets.publishing.service.go..._2021.docx.pdf