Gidders:
If we end up with an election,no matter who wins,in what way will our country be governed better? I’m thinking deck chairs/Titanic.
Johnson resigning won`t trigger an election automatically.
.
Is he really the best the Tories have?!
Gidders:
If we end up with an election,no matter who wins,in what way will our country be governed better? I’m thinking deck chairs/Titanic.
There may well be some truth in what you say, but in what way could it be worse? The world is looking at us with, at least, wry smiles on their faces. In many places we are the laughing stock… But it would be nice to be governed by people with integrity, just for a change.
Franglais:
Gidders:
If we end up with an election,no matter who wins,in what way will our country be governed better? I’m thinking deck chairs/Titanic.Johnson resigning won`t trigger an election automatically.
.
Is he really the best the Tories have?!
No, but the few decent ones are ostracised because of what they say and how they say it. That is the truth, that does not toe the party line. They have no hope of front bench seats let alone leadership I am afraid.
Franglais:
Monkey241:
I think you’re confused.
Crown copyright would prevent the reproduction without permission of the report.
In this matter Grey’s boss isn’t the PM - or govt - it is the Crown.
Grey is quite able to publish under Crown authority.Are you arguing that Civil Servants are free to publish whatever they wish, irrespective of the Government`s wishes?
The Civil Service Code 2015 says Civil Servants are accountable to ministers.
In this case Gray is accountable to the PM: the Minister who gave her the inquiry.Can soldiers take an action upon themselves, ignoring their senior officer`s orders, because they work for the Crown not the officer?
Ed to adds
Civil servants are subject to the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989, they may not disclose sensitive government information.
So if she did publish against Johnson`s wishes might she be liable to prosecution?
And the OSA does not cover this investigation. It’s amazing what people think it encompasses
Can a soldier ignore a senior officers orders because they work for the Crown? Undoubtedly in certain circumstances - indeed it is expected of them
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
Franglais:
Monkey241:
I think you’re confused.
Crown copyright would prevent the reproduction without permission of the report.
In this matter Grey’s boss isn’t the PM - or govt - it is the Crown.
Grey is quite able to publish under Crown authority.Are you arguing that Civil Servants are free to publish whatever they wish, irrespective of the Government`s wishes?
The Civil Service Code 2015 says Civil Servants are accountable to ministers.
In this case Gray is accountable to the PM: the Minister who gave her the inquiry.Can soldiers take an action upon themselves, ignoring their senior officer`s orders, because they work for the Crown not the officer?
Ed to adds
Civil servants are subject to the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989, they may not disclose sensitive government information.
So if she did publish against Johnson`s wishes might she be liable to prosecution?And the OSA does not cover this investigation. It’s amazing what people think it encompasses
Can a soldier ignore a senior officers orders because they work for the Crown? Undoubtedly in certain circumstances - indeed it is expected of them
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
You write:
“Civil servants are subject to the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989, they may not disclose sensitive government information.
So if she did publish against Johnson`s wishes might she be liable to prosecution?
[/quote]
And the OSA does not cover this investigation. It’s amazing what people think it encompasses”
You are partially correct. The 1911 Act was the original, all-encompassing act that covered any scrap of information about any aspect of government business, created when a most unfortunate sale of secret material revealed that there was nothing the government could do about it as no law, at that time, forbade it! This is what many people still believe to be the case. The 1989 Act was, in effect, a tidying up that removed much nonsense but still covered sensitive material. It covers government employees in general, not just civil servants.
How do you know the Act does not cover this report? As we have not seen it we cannot yet know if there is anything sensitive or confidential therein. If there is the Act will cover it and may lead to justifiable redactions before the public may see it.
Frogs in boiling water?*
Foreigner`s Party funding.
Johnson ignores his own rules and his own standards official re bullying by Patel.
He tries to support Paterson and change rules.
He is suspected of rule breaking in funding of decorations.
Holiday funding.
Then one or two individuals breaking lockdown rules.
Then a party under lockdown joke.
Then a real party.
Then another one.
A dozen and more.
If the initial story was about a dozen parties, with photos etc, would we still be here?
Wouldnt it have been donen`dusted by now?
*Urban myth has it that if you put a frog in a pot of boiling water it will instantly leap out. But if you put it in a pot filled with pleasantly tepid water and gradually heat it, the frog will remain in the water until it boils to death.
Dipster:
Monkey241:
Franglais:
Monkey241:
I think you’re confused.
Crown copyright would prevent the reproduction without permission of the report.
In this matter Grey’s boss isn’t the PM - or govt - it is the Crown.
Grey is quite able to publish under Crown authority.Are you arguing that Civil Servants are free to publish whatever they wish, irrespective of the Government`s wishes?
The Civil Service Code 2015 says Civil Servants are accountable to ministers.
In this case Gray is accountable to the PM: the Minister who gave her the inquiry.Can soldiers take an action upon themselves, ignoring their senior officer`s orders, because they work for the Crown not the officer?
Ed to adds
Civil servants are subject to the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989, they may not disclose sensitive government information.
So if she did publish against Johnson`s wishes might she be liable to prosecution?And the OSA does not cover this investigation. It’s amazing what people think it encompasses
Can a soldier ignore a senior officers orders because they work for the Crown? Undoubtedly in certain circumstances - indeed it is expected of them
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
You write:
"Civil servants are subject to the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989, they may not disclose sensitive government information.
So if she did publish against Johnson`s wishes might she be liable to prosecution?
And the OSA does not cover this investigation. It’s amazing what people think it encompasses"
You are partially correct. The 1911 Act was the original, all-encompassing act that covered any scrap of information about any aspect of government business, created when a most unfortunate sale of secret material revealed that there was nothing the government could do about it as no law, at that time, forbade it! This is what many people still believe to be the case. The 1989 Act was, in effect, a tidying up that removed much nonsense but still covered sensitive material. It covers government employees in general, not just civil servants.
How do you know the Act does not cover this report? As we have not seen it we cannot yet know if there is anything sensitive or confidential therein. If there is the Act will cover it and may lead to justifiable redactions before the public may see it.
[/quote]
Which part of this inquiry relating to a fairly mundane law breaking do you think WOULD be a threat to national security?
The 1989 Act creates offences connected with the unauthorised disclosure of information in six specified categories by Government employees. These are:
Security and intelligence
Defence
International Relations
Information which might lead to the commission of crime
Foreign confidences
The special investigation powers under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Security Services Act 1989
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Are you arguing that Civil Servants are free to publish whatever they wish, irrespective of the Government`s wishes?
The Civil Service Code 2015 says Civil Servants are accountable to ministers.
In this case Gray is accountable to the PM: the Minister who gave her the inquiry.
Can soldiers take an action upon themselves, ignoring their senior officer`s orders, because they work for the Crown not the officer?
Ed to adds
Civil servants are subject to the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989, they may not disclose sensitive government information.
So if she did publish against Johnson`s wishes might she be liable to prosecution?
[/quote]
And the OSA does not cover this investigation. It’s amazing what people think it encompasses
Can a soldier ignore a senior officers orders because they work for the Crown? Undoubtedly in certain circumstances - indeed it is expected of them
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
[/quote]
You write:
“Civil servants are subject to the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989, they may not disclose sensitive government information.
So if she did publish against Johnson`s wishes might she be liable to prosecution?
[/quote]
And the OSA does not cover this investigation. It’s amazing what people think it encompasses”
You are partially correct. The 1911 Act was the original, all-encompassing act that covered any scrap of information about any aspect of government business, created when a most unfortunate sale of secret material revealed that there was nothing the government could do about it as no law, at that time, forbade it! This is what many people still believe to be the case. The 1989 Act was, in effect, a tidying up that removed much nonsense but still covered sensitive material. It covers government employees in general, not just civil servants.
How do you know the Act does not cover this report? As we have not seen it we cannot yet know if there is anything sensitive or confidential therein. If there is the Act will cover it and may lead to justifiable redactions before the public may see it.
[/quote]
Which part of this inquiry relating to a fairly mundane law breaking do you think WOULD be a threat to national security?
The 1989 Act creates offences connected with the unauthorised disclosure of information in six specified categories by Government employees. These are:
Security and intelligence
Defence
International Relations
Information which might lead to the commission of crime
Foreign confidences
The special investigation powers under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Security Services Act 1989
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
[/quote]
The report is, as yet, an unknown to us. But it is not impossible to imagine it might contain some details (staff names and their departments) that might be considered sensitive and thus covered by the Act. In this I fear I must, as much as I regret it, parrot Boris and say we will have to wait and see. And it seems that when that might be is dependant on the Met.
But that still does not change the fact that any document/material produced by a civil servant is still Crown Copyright, sensitive or not.
Dipster:
Are you arguing that Civil Servants are free to publish whatever they wish, irrespective of the Government`s wishes?The Civil Service Code 2015 says Civil Servants are accountable to ministers.
In this case Gray is accountable to the PM: the Minister who gave her the inquiry.Can soldiers take an action upon themselves, ignoring their senior officer`s orders, because they work for the Crown not the officer?
Ed to adds
Civil servants are subject to the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989, they may not disclose sensitive government information.
So if she did publish against Johnson`s wishes might she be liable to prosecution?
And the OSA does not cover this investigation. It’s amazing what people think it encompasses
Can a soldier ignore a senior officers orders because they work for the Crown? Undoubtedly in certain circumstances - indeed it is expected of them
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
[/quote]
You write:
“Civil servants are subject to the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989, they may not disclose sensitive government information.
So if she did publish against Johnson`s wishes might she be liable to prosecution?
[/quote]
And the OSA does not cover this investigation. It’s amazing what people think it encompasses”
You are partially correct. The 1911 Act was the original, all-encompassing act that covered any scrap of information about any aspect of government business, created when a most unfortunate sale of secret material revealed that there was nothing the government could do about it as no law, at that time, forbade it! This is what many people still believe to be the case. The 1989 Act was, in effect, a tidying up that removed much nonsense but still covered sensitive material. It covers government employees in general, not just civil servants.
How do you know the Act does not cover this report? As we have not seen it we cannot yet know if there is anything sensitive or confidential therein. If there is the Act will cover it and may lead to justifiable redactions before the public may see it.
[/quote]
Which part of this inquiry relating to a fairly mundane law breaking do you think WOULD be a threat to national security?
The 1989 Act creates offences connected with the unauthorised disclosure of information in six specified categories by Government employees. These are:
Security and intelligence
Defence
International Relations
Information which might lead to the commission of crime
Foreign confidences
The special investigation powers under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Security Services Act 1989
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
[/quote]
The report is, as yet, an unknown to us. But it is not impossible to imagine it might contain some details (staff names and their departments) that might be considered sensitive and thus covered by the Act. In this I fear I must, as much as I regret it, parrot Boris and say we will have to wait and see. And it seems that when that might be is dependant on the Met.
But that still does not change the fact that any document/material produced by a civil servant is still Crown Copyright, sensitive or not.
[/quote]
And Crown copyright belongs…wait for it… to the Crown.
Not the PM
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Civil servants are subject to the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989, they may not disclose sensitive government information.
So if she did publish against Johnson`s wishes might she be liable to prosecution?
[/quote]
And the OSA does not cover this investigation. It’s amazing what people think it encompasses
Can a soldier ignore a senior officers orders because they work for the Crown? Undoubtedly in certain circumstances - indeed it is expected of them
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
[/quote]
You write:
“Civil servants are subject to the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989, they may not disclose sensitive government information.
So if she did publish against Johnson`s wishes might she be liable to prosecution?
[/quote]
And the OSA does not cover this investigation. It’s amazing what people think it encompasses”
You are partially correct. The 1911 Act was the original, all-encompassing act that covered any scrap of information about any aspect of government business, created when a most unfortunate sale of secret material revealed that there was nothing the government could do about it as no law, at that time, forbade it! This is what many people still believe to be the case. The 1989 Act was, in effect, a tidying up that removed much nonsense but still covered sensitive material. It covers government employees in general, not just civil servants.
How do you know the Act does not cover this report? As we have not seen it we cannot yet know if there is anything sensitive or confidential therein. If there is the Act will cover it and may lead to justifiable redactions before the public may see it.
[/quote]
Which part of this inquiry relating to a fairly mundane law breaking do you think WOULD be a threat to national security?
The 1989 Act creates offences connected with the unauthorised disclosure of information in six specified categories by Government employees. These are:
Security and intelligence
Defence
International Relations
Information which might lead to the commission of crime
Foreign confidences
The special investigation powers under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Security Services Act 1989
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
[/quote]
The report is, as yet, an unknown to us. But it is not impossible to imagine it might contain some details (staff names and their departments) that might be considered sensitive and thus covered by the Act. In this I fear I must, as much as I regret it, parrot Boris and say we will have to wait and see. And it seems that when that might be is dependant on the Met.
But that still does not change the fact that any document/material produced by a civil servant is still Crown Copyright, sensitive or not.
[/quote]
And Crown copyright belongs…wait for it… to the Crown.
Not the PM
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
[/quote]
I think that, ultimately, the decision if argued would fall to the Attorney General. But as I have no experience of anybody arguing over Crown Copyright i may not be correct on that point.
So, it goes. Liars gonna lie.
Johnson and Patel give out misleading figures on crime, Business Minister Kwarteng defends them.
Report here on “PM” programme. Piece starts at 0-18min.
Martin Lewis (moneysavingexpert) who rarely gives political comment does have a say about it, starting 0-23.
Johnson gives misleading figures on employment even after being corrected by the Office for Statistics Regulation.
fullfact.org/economy/january-20 … mployment/
bbc.com/news/60245483
Disobeying his own ministerial code, again.
I though the future was meant to be “leveling up”? Not dragging the whole country down to his level in the mire.
Still, it keeps PartyGate off the agenda for another few days, as we acclimatise to the new norm.
Hush my mouth!
PMQs today another party alleged Johnson photographed Dec 15th at a Downing St party. Not one previously notified to Gray or Police.
Adding Link
mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ … s-26181071
Seeing the Champagne (Veuve Clicquot?) made me wonder who is paying for all the booze and nibbles. Has this been mentioned anywhere?
Dipster:
Seeing the Champagne (Veuve Clicquot?) made me wonder who is paying for all the booze and nibbles. Has this been mentioned anywhere?
Cant be Johnson paying, can it? He cant afford to pay for his own holidays, wallpaper, or even a round,…on a first date! independent.co.uk/independe … 23648.html
Franglais:
And the Met might now look at Johnson’s wallpaper.
theguardian.com/politics/20 … lat-refurb
Boris certainly seems to have a problem paying for anything out of his own pocket doesn’t he? Let’s see where this goes. But with the Met there are no guarantees that it will actually go anywhere…
Dipster:
Franglais:
And the Met might now look at Johnson’s wallpaper.
theguardian.com/politics/20 … lat-refurbBoris certainly seems to have a problem paying for anything out of his own pocket doesn’t he? Let’s see where this goes. But with the Met there are no guarantees that it will actually go anywhere…
Or perhaps as was decided before there was no offence there?
'Course you’ve already decided he’s guilty and the Met simply incompetent or dishonest.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
i
Monkey241:
Dipster:
Franglais:
And the Met might now look at Johnson’s wallpaper.
theguardian.com/politics/20 … lat-refurbBoris certainly seems to have a problem paying for anything out of his own pocket doesn’t he? Let’s see where this goes. But with the Met there are no guarantees that it will actually go anywhere…
Or perhaps as was decided before there was no offence there?
'Course you’ve already decided he’s guilty and the Met simply incompetent or dishonest.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
There are a couple of things I find disturbing. In my experience of police procedures when investigating they are wary of any suspects being able to get together an “get their story straight” or arrange alibis. before interrogation. Thus they tend to act quickly. That certainly has not been the case here. And now emailed questionnaires are sent out and the recipients given one week to respond. None of this sounds particularly rigorous to me.
As for me having already decided he is guilty, that is a presumption that is quite wrong. Yes, I do believe he is a liar with no moral compass or integrity to allow him to act decently. I think we have all seen that in his actions. Thus I do not consider him fit to govern.
But “guilty” in the legal sense must only come after proper and vigorous investigation. Here I do not believe the Met is capable of that. Look at the behaviour of so many members of the Met. Then look at the Met crime figures and their results. Then ask victims of crime. And then tell me you are sure they are up to the job.
Dipster:
iMonkey241:
Dipster:
Franglais:
And the Met might now look at Johnson’s wallpaper.
theguardian.com/politics/20 … lat-refurbBoris certainly seems to have a problem paying for anything out of his own pocket doesn’t he? Let’s see where this goes. But with the Met there are no guarantees that it will actually go anywhere…
Or perhaps as was decided before there was no offence there?
'Course you’ve already decided he’s guilty and the Met simply incompetent or dishonest.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
There are a couple of things I find disturbing. In my experience of police procedures when investigating they are wary of any suspects being able to get together an “get their story straight” or arrange alibis. before interrogation. Thus they tend to act quickly. That certainly has not been the case here. And now emailed questionnaires are sent out and the recipients given one week to respond. None of this sounds particularly rigorous to me.
As for me having already decided he is guilty, that is a presumption that is quite wrong. Yes, I do believe he is a liar with no moral compass or integrity to allow him to act decently. I think we have all seen that in his actions. Thus I do not consider him fit to govern.
But “guilty” in the legal sense must only come after proper and vigorous investigation. Here I do not believe the Met is capable of that. Look at the behaviour of so many members of the Met. Then look at the Met crime figures and their results. Then ask victims of crime. And then tell me you are sure they are up to the job.
Was my presumption of guilt comment aimed at you?
Or Franglais
As for questionnaires etc is this in relation to Parties? An offence that carries a fixed penalty.
Proportion.
Guilty comes from either paying the FPN or being tried in court. An investigation simply provides the facts to be adjudicated on. It doesn guilt.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Tapatalk
Seems that Ms ■■■■ has fallen on her sword. Of course the person at the head of any organisation is ultimately responsible for its failures, but this smacks of arse covering by Khan et al.