BoJo referred to police by the Cabinet Office. Partygate II?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

May I commend the Sue Gray Report to you Old Boy?
https://assets.publishing.service.go...GATHERINGS.pdf

Commend? You serious, Andrew? She's tainted goods.(As is Boris).

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Commend? You serious, Andrew? She's tainted goods.(As is Boris).

It's the report OB was urging us to wait for but it appears he may have missed its release.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's the report OB was urging us to wait for but it appears he may have missed its release.

Yeah - but we didn't know then that Gray was tainted goods.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Commend? You serious, Andrew? She's tainted goods.(As is Boris).

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Yeah - but we didn't know then that Gray was tainted goods.

Keep repeating the slur, someone might believe you…

https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...-investigation

The investigation was completed in January 2022 but, following the decision of the Metropolitan Police to investigate the breaches of Covid laws, Gray’s full report was put on hold and a short ‘update’ was published on 31 January 2022.

On 19 May 2022, the Met Police announced it had completed its inquiries and had issued 126 fixed penalty notices to 83 people. Of the 12 gatherings investigated, fines were issued for eight of them. Gray’s full report was published on 25 May.

The Labour chief of staff vacancy was advertised November 2022, as Starmer had a re-organisation the previous month, and had let the previous CoS (Sam White) go.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Yeah - but we didn't know then that Gray was tainted goods.

She hadn't spoken to Starmer when her report was writtten.

She's a strong character, she;s no flunky in search of an easy number and ran a pub near the Northern Irish town of Newry in the troubled 1980s.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

She hadn't spoken to Starmer when her report was writtten.

She's a strong character, she;s no flunky in search of an easy number and ran a pub near the Northern Irish town of Newry in the troubled 1980s.

We (includes you and Hugh) have no idea as to who spoke to Gray nor when. As in 'their people spoke to her people...'. They're all economical with the truth.

In any case, the "seen to be proper" rules, you know, the "perceived impropriety" bit, applies.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

We (includes you and Hugh) have no idea as to who spoke to Gray nor when. As in 'their people spoke to her people...'. They're all economical with the truth.

In any case, the "seen to be proper" rules, you know, the "perceived impropriety" bit, applies.

Is that not a "guilty unless innocence can be proved" approach?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Is that not a "guilty unless innocence can be proved" approach?

I'm surprised at you, Andrew. We're dealing with the CS code here and impartiality.

When it transpired that Gray was to become a high-up in the Labour Party, it immediately begged all the questions about her impartiality. And remember, Starmer repeatedly refused to say when Gray had been first contacted. Here impartiality was not "seen to be so".

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

We (includes you and Hugh) have no idea as to who spoke to Gray nor when. As in 'their people spoke to her people...'. They're all economical with the truth.

In any case, the "seen to be proper" rules, you know, the "perceived impropriety" bit, applies.

With no respect you don't know anything about it.It's all supposition and innuendo with you.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'm surprised at you, Andrew. We're dealing with the CS code here and impartiality.

When it transpired that Gray was to become a high-up in the Labour Party, it immediately begged all the questions about her impartiality. And remember, Starmer repeatedly refused to say when Gray had been first contacted. Here impartiality was not "seen to be so".

I don't have an issue with civil servants moving to political parties. I think the timing that Hugh outlined provides us with confidence that her report was not an attempt to curry favour for a job. Besides, her capabilities are well known and respected by government and opposition alike so would get a good role on her own merits.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Maggy

With no respect you don't know anything about it.It's all supposition and innuendo with you.

What on earth are you on about?

---------- Post added at 11:37 ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I don't have an issue with civil servants moving to political parties. I think the timing that Hugh outlined provides us with confidence that her report was not an attempt to curry favour for a job. Besides, her capabilities are well known and respected by government and opposition alike so would get a good role on her own merits.

I've made no suggestion that Gray might have tried to curry favour for a job with Starmer. It was more about her likely feelings about Boris and on the principle of "perception", when you look back on it, that's where she falls foul, imo.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What on earth are you on about?

---------- Post added at 11:37 ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 ----------



I've made no suggestion that Gray might have tried to curry favour for a job with Starmer. It was more about her likely feelings about Boris and on the principle of "perception", when you look back on it, that's where she falls foul, imo.

I'm sure there're plenty of (Senior) Civil Servants who vote Conservative but put those feelings to one side and got on with the job they were charged with during the last Labour administration. Or are you saying it's only those Civil Servants with left leaning political views that can't be trusted to follow the code?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

I'm sure there're plenty of (Senior) Civil Servants who vote Conservative but put those feelings to one side and got on with the job they were charged with during the last Labour administration. Or are you saying it's only those Civil Servants with left leaning political views that can't be trusted to follow the code?

That's an unreasonable question to put to me. We are dealing with a specific case with no other reference point to a transgressing Labour politician.

The Gray questions only arose after it was revealed that she had been chosen as a #1 to Starmer. Furthermore:

https://news.sky.com/story/partygate...ivil%20servant.

Partygate inquiry chair Harriet Harman was in personal contact with Sue Gray in early stages of parliamentary probe. Sky News understands the veteran Labour MP - who was leading the investigation into claims Boris Johnson misled MPs - had been in direct contact with the former senior civil servant.

It is totally valid under the "seen to be so" principle to ask these questions. Plus, I think Boris is a lying toad and should leave parliament.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That's an unreasonable question to put to me. We are dealing with a specific case with no other reference point to a transgressing Labour politician.

The Gray questions only arose after it was revealed that she had been chosen as a #1 to Starmer. Furthermore:

https://news.sky.com/story/partygate...ivil%20servant.

I think this quote from that Sky News article provides some useful context.

There is no suggestion Ms Harman was aware of Labour's plans to recruit Ms Gray at the time of her conversations, or that the contact continued after Ms Gray was first approached by aides to Sir Keir.

A privileges committee spokesperson said: "It was the duty of the chair to make contact with anyone, including Sue Gray, who might be able to indicate potential witnesses. The only evidence the committee will rely on it is that which is separately and independently verified by the relevant witness. The privileges committee is not relying on evidence gathered by Sue Gray.

[Sephiroth]

"There is no suggestion ...", "we have no plans..." are all forms of weasel wording that allows for the opposite when it emerges. It has well emerged as it's all in the open and being alleged.

Remember "seen/perceived to be so".