Sue Gray

motorbiking said:
Your claims can be dismissed as Nonsense [as measured by your own yard stick].

and by the way you'd probably get 5 points and a means tested fine. 80%+ chance if you go no comment. If you are innocent and given the chance to protest it, why would you go no comment?

naughty Sue has questions she is refusing to answer.
Click to expand...
Lots of mud still. Hoping some will stick
 
Sponsored Links
JohnD said:
When the prosecution has no evidence that a car was speeding, or that it was my car? And can't say where it happened? Or when? Or the registration number of the car? No witness? No camera?
Click to expand...
Its pretty hard to issue speeding ticket to a car that doesn't exist and has no owner.

Had there been no job offer or conduct, then of course there would be nothing to answer, but that is not what we have here.

To answer you specific question: An allegation of a motoring offence is all that is necessary to ask the registered keeper to identify the driver, if he fails to do so without good reason, he commits an offence. All that is necessary for an allegation of excess speed, is for an officer to form an opinion of excess speed and for that opinion to corroborated either by a device or another officer. It is for you to engage to defend yourself.

No Comment is only a useful trick, during the case building part of the process. Once you are before the beak, they will conclude [as is the same in the court of public opinion] that a person who does not protest their innocence and put the record straight, is likely to be guilty.
 
motorbiking said:
Its pretty hard to issue speeding ticket to a car that doesn't exist and has no owner.

Had there been no job offer or conduct, then of course there would be nothing to answer, but that is not what we have here.

To answer you specific question: An allegation of a motoring offence is all that is necessary to ask the registered keeper to identify the driver, if he fails to do so without good reason, he commits an offence. All that is necessary for an allegation of excess speed, is for an officer to form an opinion of excess speed and for that opinion to corroborated either by a device or another officer. It is for you to engage to defend yourself.

No Comment is only a useful trick, during the case building part of the process. Once you are before the beak, they will conclude [as is the same in the court of public opinion] that a person who does not protest their innocence and put the record straight, is likely to be guilty.
Click to expand...
Has Sue Gray said no comment to "the beak" ?

Did you have that press release by the way?
 
Sponsored Links
Given the press coverage - she is being tried in the court of public opinion. Most seem to conclude questions are being unanswered. The above reference to her briefing the Times disputing that she was a Labour person, [which is obviously now true], given the job offer/acceptance

Brigadier said:
What criminal or civil offence do you have in mind?
Click to expand...

For Criminal Justice, we have sec 34-37. JohnD will not get off his hypothetical speeding ticket by going no comment. In fact it will end up with a bigger fine and more points.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

An Act to make further provision in relation to criminal justice (including employment in the prison service); to amend or extend the criminal law and powers for preventing crime and enforcing that law; to amend the Video Recordings Act 1984; and for purposes connected with those purposes.
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
 
She is only being tried in the court of public opinion by people like you.

Most want to see the official evidence and report. And accept the outcome.

Do you have a link to this press release ?
 
I disagree - I don't think Starmer would have been asked 8 times, if people didn't think something dodgy was going on.

Here is copy paste of the link you can't read that has the info you want...

Above is the current Sue Gray timeline of events, according to what is in the public domain and based on what Labour would have everyone believe about what has emerged over the last few days. Labour are still standing by the line that they had no contact at all with Gray during Partygate, and she had nothing to do with the Propriety and Ethics team’s response to Harriet Harman and the Privileges Committee’s Partygate probe late last year. This defence is now looking increasingly ridiculous…

Here’s a brief summary:

  • Gray’s Partygate investigation was published in May 2022. That month, Guido published a photo showing Gray and her son Liam Conlin – now reportedly looking to stand as a Labour Party candidate – meeting Labour politicians in Parliament. A “very p*ssed off” Gray then briefed the Times claiming it was “absolute crap” that she’s “a Labour person”…
  • In October 2022, Starmer sacked his Chief of Staff Sam White, with the Guardian reporting Labour were moving to an “election footing“. Sam Coates reported yesterday that Labour’s Director of Communications Matthew Doyle is insisting this is the point at which Labour first approach Gray about the job. At least four months before the offer is made public…
  • In November 2022, Gray was included in “ministerial-level discussions about how to respond to requests for evidence” from the Privileges Committee regarding Partygate, according to The Sun. This directly contradicts Labour’s quote to PA on Tuesday that “Sue Gray was not working in [the Propriety and Ethics] team” at the time. She also still had an email address marked “Gray, Sue – Cabinet Office – (OFFICIAL)” despite the claim she was, at this point, already working exclusively in the Levelling Up Department.
  • In January 2023, Gray suggested a candidate for a £110,000 a year public appointment – again, despite claims by some that she had already left the Cabinet Office’s Propriety and Ethics team. By this point she had already been negotiating with Starmer for three months, even by Labour’s own admission…
  • In March 2023, Sue Gray resigned from the Civil Service and was revealed as Starmer’s choice for Chief of Staff. LBC’s Nick Ferrari asked Starmer when he first made contact with Gray. He gave no clear answer, and eventually said “nothing improper” had taken place.
Click to expand...
 
No we have opinion based on the news...

And you have your info above
 
I'm just reporting the news and concluding what is being suggested. The fact is Starmer has questions and despite being asked - he seems unwilling to answer. Why is that when he could "Clear it all up nicely that way".
 
motorbiking said:
I'm just reporting the news and concluding what is being suggested. The fact is Starmer has questions and despite being asked - he seems unwilling to answer. Why is that when he could "Clear it all up nicely that way".
Click to expand...
has he or she refused to answer any official legitimate request ?

you've made some very bold claims with no evidence whatsoever. Trial by press indeed. Of all people, you should have better than that . We all read things but few of us make decisions on news items alone

I can only assume you have no link to this press release .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links

Similar threads

S
Cancel Culture gone mad
Replies
4
Views
528
JohnD
JohnD
JohnD
Partygate
6 7 8
Replies
112
Views
6K
SirGalahad
S
JohnD
Does it matter that we have a lying, dishonest Prime Minister?
7 8 9
Replies
129
Views
8K
SirGalahad
S
JohnD
Buffoon shakes at the sight of reality
Replies
5
Views
660
transam
T
S
We live in a Kakistocracy
Replies
11
Views
1K
JohnD
JohnD
Back
Top