Sue Gray

[Brigadier]

Not what the press say

Sue Gray 'was working on Partygate when talks with Keir Starmer began'

Sue Gray held secret talks with Sir Keir Starmer while she was advising the cross-party team investigating the circumstances surrounding partygate, a report is suspected to reveal.

www.dailymail.co.uk

see - I'm just reporting the news.

It comes to something when anyone considers the above to be an issue at all, let alone a "bigger" one.............

......unless anyone is contesting the veracity of her report.

 

[motorbiking]

I'm not.

I'm focused on the naughty chit chats that went on undeclared, contrary to rules and the secret recruiting that went on, contrary to the rules.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

No link to this actual press release yet ?

There is 1 is there?

 

[JohnD]

I'm just reporting the news.

Actually, you are making allegations.

"Reporting the news" you would have said "According to the Daily Torygraph, civil servants are anti-government saboteurs who cannot be trusted to show lying Conservative politicians in a favourable light"

With a link.

When are you going to provide a link to this press release you claim to have seen? Does it really exist?

 

[JonathanM]

Are you saying the job discussions started before October 2022. Is there any evidence for that?

 

[JonathanM]

Why do some right wing posters on here think it is clever or funny to deliberately misspell words. Is it a passive aggressive sort of thing.

 

[motorbiking]

Has it occurred to you that some people have dyslexia ?

 

[JonathanM]

Apols.

 

[JohnD]

Why do some right wing posters on here think it is clever or funny to deliberately misspell words. Is it a passive aggressive sort of thing.

Tranny does it deliberately.

 

[motorbiking]

Actually, you are making allegations.

"Reporting the news" you would have said "According to the Daily Torygraph, civil servants are anti-government saboteurs who cannot be trusted to show lying Conservative politicians in a favourable light"

With a link.

When are you going to provide a link to this press release you claim to have seen? Does it really exist?

If I'd said that I would have just looked like a single minded left wing fool, that doesn't want to hear any news unless it was first published in the Guardian. Sky, The Mail, the sun the beeb etc etc. are all reporting on the "no comment". Even the Guardian is in full on defence mode trying to spin it.

Tranny does it deliberately.

and you know this is fact? or are you telling fibs?

 

[JohnD]

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

I see you've now altered your claim to suggest there was evidence of an offence.

But in my imaginary trial, there was no evidence of speeding, or anything else.

Where is your imaginary press release?

back in October, she made a press release

 

[motorbiking]

There is no need for video evidence. All that is needed is an allegation of an offence, some corroboration (e.g. a second opinion) and you are going to have to defend yourself. That means answering questions. I hope you never find yourself on the wrong side of a magistrates court. They are high speed "justice" machines with efficiency of punishment as the top priority. Most magistrates will believe a prosector and most clerks of the court are barely competent to manage their own toilet needs.

 

[JohnD]

There is no need for video evidence. All that is needed is an allegation of an offence, some corroboration (e.g. a second opinion) and you are going to have to defend yourself. That means answering questions.

There was no evidence.

 

[JonathanM]

I think if Sue and Keir were purely talking about a job, then there is very little to this. If they were talking about how they would organise things after a Labour election victory, that is also fine. If she was leaking confidential information that's a very different matter.

It's not very different to top people in industry. It's fine for them to discuss a new job, they just can't give out trade secrets. For the moment I trust that they weren't doing this.

 

[motorbiking]

There was no evidence.

An opinion corroborated by another is all that is necessary, if you don't defend yourself.