Sue Gray

[carmanmemoranda]

Motorbiking. Give it up .

You are just digging yourself a bigger hole

 

[blup]

I very much doubt it’s possible to distinguish between a works “do” and a “working dinner”.

A works do is mainly social, a working dinner is mainly work. A party is just that, a party.

Blup

 

[JohnD]

Can't see any work here.

 

[fillyboy]

Or here

 

[JohnD]

How many of the people in your picture lied to Parliament?


In my pics, one.

 

[big-all]

It is one thing to say we were working, ended up working late and ordered out for food. It is another to organise a dinner in advance.

I very much doubt it’s possible to distinguish between a works “do” and a “working dinner”.

I see no difference between either and suggest retrospective FPNs were dodgy for both. The idea of the legislation was to give police power to disperse gatherings at the time.

As I said at the time (posted here). There would have been many problems to secure a conviction.

not sure what your point is really we all need to eat and its reasonable to eat not starve
iff you are well organized, and plan in advance you will at the same time have room to think of distance requirements and possibly tend to get nearer to what's required to keep safe
now if you leave it to the last minute then its possibly more likely to meet problems off non-compliance because food ordering and hunger are occupying the space that you would be dedicating to distancing whilst waiting for sustenance

 

[motorbiking]

So it looks like Kier and Sue have got their stories straight ready to report the time line today.

Sue Gray to tell government watchdog when job talks with Labour began

The ex-civil servant looks set to join Sir Keir Starmer's office in a move that has angered some Tories

www.bbc.co.uk

Doesn't explain why she did not seek the correct permission to talk to the opposition or report the fact that she did. But it seems only the Tories are to be held to account for rule breaking.

 

[JohnD]

But it seems only the Tories are to be held to account for rule breaking.

Prime Minister Johnson was (eventually) held to account for repeatedly lying to Parliament.

Remind me, which Prime Minister lied to the Queen to prorogue Parliament and remove democratic control so he could rule like an Emperor?

Was it

1) Pinoccio

2) Boris Johnson

 

[Odds]

A new interim report from the privileges committee paints a compelling picture of an attempted cover-up by Downing Street, almost a year after the police issued penalties for criminal breaches of the law during the Partygate scandal.

For all the extra shocking details they have published, their argument appears to be very straightforward: Johnson announced the rules, broke the rules and then denied that the rules had been broken.
It would have been obvious to the prime minister, they suggest, that his presence at these gatherings was against the guidance, and therefore he could not claim to have been ignorant of parties or to have needed assurances that they were above board. These are core parts of Johnson’s defence, according to the statement he put out within minutes of the interim report’s publication.

Conservative MPs are outraged by Gray’s move to Labour, mostly because they fear what she knows, having served so long as the Cabinet Office’s chief of propriety ethics. Analysts at the Institute for Government point out it could also be uncomfortable for the civil service.
But the idea that it invalidates her report, which was based on witness testimony and documentary evidence, or that the bulk of Tory MPs may now be ready to vote to stop the privileges committee in its tracks, is not credible.

It is also worth remembering that Johnson welcomed Gray’s report at the time it was published, saying he was grateful for its revelations and that he was “humbled”.

Johnson will now give evidence to the committee in about two weeks. It is plain that the former prime minister intends to fight for his political life by whatever means possible. He knows that his future as an MP is at stake...a damning verdict from the privileges committee that recommends a lengthy suspension and possibly triggers a recall petition could finally bring to a halt his tumultuous second stint in parliament.

Analysis: Rowena Mason@theDrainuga

From Prime Minister to Sideshow Bob in less than a year.

 

[JohnD]

...

...the idea that it invalidates her report, which was based on witness testimony and documentary evidence, or that the bulk of Tory MPs may now be ready to vote to stop the privileges committee in its tracks, is not credible....

@motorbiking and other Johnson apologists will still keep saying it, though.

 

[blup]

I don’t mind that Johnson partied or if he has (like all politicians) occasionally lied, better an honest porky than the carefully crafted intellectually justifiable lies of bliar on irack. I do object to Johnson’s pathological inability to be truthful pretty much any of the time.

Blup

 

[IT Minion]

So it looks like Kier and Sue have got their stories straight ready to report the time line today.

Sue Gray to tell government watchdog when job talks with Labour began

The ex-civil servant looks set to join Sir Keir Starmer's office in a move that has angered some Tories

www.bbc.co.uk

Doesn't explain why she did not seek the correct permission to talk to the opposition or report the fact that she did. But it seems only the Tories are to be held to account for rule breaking.

Do we know she didn't?

If she was approached by Kier Starmer, as is reported, then she wouldn't have been able to give advanced notice, but presumably would need to update the government afterwards.

I haven't seen any statement from the government to say she hasn't followed any rules. Just from commentators speculating.

 

[Notch7]

Sue Gray: the person nobody has heard of is now a household name

next she will be on Im a celeb....

 

[motorbiking]

The papers certainly seem to think she did (fail to report).
Sir Kier is refusing to say when he first had discussions with her, but at the same confirms he had no contact during her reporting of party gate. That is not to say others might not have.

I think she has some exposure. But her Wikipedia page suggests she's good at deleting things.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

The papers certainly seem to think she did (fail to report).
Sir Kier is refusing to say when he first had discussions with her, but at the same confirms he had no contact during her reporting of party gate. That is not to say others might not have.

I think she has some exposure. But her Wikipedia page suggests she's good at deleting things.

also suggests she is good at independent thinking.

I cannot believe you are still fighting to get Boris off the hook. That's just stupidity or blinkers