31st January 2022
An “update” of the Sue Gray report was published today.
It did not say a lot – but it said enough.
Any competent close reading of the update would indicate that the final report will be even worse for the (current) Prime Minister.
There are (at least) three “gatherings” under criminal investigation that the Prime Minister either attended or knew about.
And for there to these gatherings to be a police matter means there is already evidence of serious and flagrant breaches.
And there are nine other gatherings to be investigated by police.
Given that the report – even in these stymied conditions – was able to say the following, this could not be more serious for the Prime Minister:
“ii. At least some of the gatherings in question represent a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time.
“iii. At times it seems there was too little thought given to what was happening across the country in considering the appropriateness of some of these gatherings, the risks they presented to public health and how they might appear to the public. There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times. Some of the events should not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did.”
Accountability for these Downing Street parties – while everyone else was under strict lockdown – is only a matter of time.
That is why this report is a timebomb for Boris.
And in any sensible political system, the Prime Minister would now resign than let this timebomb explode.
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
I watched the statement and questions in the Commons this afternoon. Officials casually thrown under the bus to save his own worthless skin. May was excoriating. There was one thing more pitiful than his own miserable performance and that was the number of MPs willing to debase whatever shred of self respect they left had in trying to support his abject lies as he attempted to hide behind the Met’s investigation. He smirked when Members recounted burying family. He apparently did not know whether he was there or not – a truly Berkeleyan / Schrodinger existence which fooled nobody. The SNP leader was ejected but in an irony only possible in Parliament, was ejected from the Chamber for telling the truth. Johnson boasted in a bare faced lie that the UK was uniting the West to confront Putin, only for it to be announced that his telephone call had been cancelled in order for him to try to save his own skin. It is difficult for the UK to sink lower, but I know Johnson will plumb yet further depths. Clearly some Tory MPs are so dim they believe their constituency is so “safe” they can continue to support him. Yet he will survive for now. The Parliamentary party is too craven to eject him. Self preservation is Tory MPs only consideration. The Met may yet even conclude “nothing to see here”. What a travesty.
Well said. I’m not a lawyer, but a lowly secondary school teacher, and thank you and DAG for your analysis.
Ditto
Thank both you and David for voicing so articulately this sickening horror show.
Well it appears the ‘greased piglet’ as Cameron described him has escaped. After a meeting between BJ and Tory backbenchers held yesterday late afternoon MP’s it’s been reported emerged saying a variety of things all along the lines of ‘I feel much better now, he has apologised and promises not to do it again’.
Meanwhile Frost’s “Freedom Bill” is coming down the line and designed to strip those very MP’s of sight, debate and approval of changes to primary law being done by ministers in secret.
But it wasn’t only the backbenchers. The meeting was the whole PCP – including the “payroll”. Cynical but effective. Now they will insist of waiting for the Met Report – which could take over a year (those who need to be could be interviewed “within weeks” according to a senior Scotland Yard plodess) and then no doubt there will be a report launched to investigate the Met report. but I don’t think people who lost family and friends will forget the visceral hurt nor those of us who did not lose family forget the contempt in which we are held by this administration.
I agree that the Tory MPs are likely to allow him to survive for now.
Hopefully the May elections will be a bloodbath for the Tory party. This is the only thing which can shake the Mps from their complacency & cowardice. Not a shred of morality in this party.
Perfectly put.
What does it say about Conservative MPs who continue to back Johnson despite clear evidence of wrongdoing. Are they really so unable to defend their beloved Brexit without the liar in chief.!
‘In any sensible political system, the Prime Minister would now resign.’
How true. Governance doesn’t matter too much when things are going well, but when there is trouble is when governance really matters.
The rottenness has now gone so far that even the men in grey suits don’t get wheeled out.
If there was one thing the Tories we’re good at it was getting rid of failed leaders.
Sue Gray is daring Cressida Dick to do her policing job properly. If not Sue Gray will do it, and Cressida Dick knows this.
Tory MPs should also know this. However their continued shameless inaction suggests they may not have quite figured it out yet.
Very well put. The question is, if the time bomb is ticking and Johnson knows it, how much more damage can he do (democratic governance and to the country in general) in whatever remaining time he has left in office?
The possibilities provided for by the evidence in the public domain should make us all grateful to the ladies fielding the hot potato. There are public domain emails and images that seem to imply a repeated organised conspiracy by the people who govern us to break laws. It looks quite difficult to do anything fair that doesn’t involve nicking the sitting Prime Minister for something reasonably serious, for no other reason than not doing so seems to suggest that you can’t, for some unspeakable reason. Boris went dare, and Sue dared Cressida in turn to be the first Police person in history to be managing the fate of a sitting Prime Minister of the UK. I’m no constitutional expert, but I’d like an election.
Even if Boris manages to cling on for now by means of some technicality, he has cooked his goose irretrievably with much of the electorate, including many of those who voted for him.
An interesting and revealing account of an interview with Dominic Cummings can be found at https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/01/dominic-cummings-the-man-trying-to-take-down-boris-johnson.html
On a normal Island Johnson would have resigned by now or he would have been removed by his own Party. But alas there has been a coup within the Tory Party and it is only Tory in name with a few honest ones left
Completely agree that the updated Sue Gray Report is a time bomb. Regrettably l think Johnson will not resign for there is no gain for King Boris to do the honorable thing (he left his pride and integrity behind years ago)
Today, for me, the ‘Tory” Party crossed the line. It jumped with all four trotters across the farm into Trumpian politics with little desire to turn back because of power, status, the good life and their Libertarian mission to smash our relative but humble stability up for big money and lifestyle.
You are too generous. Throughout his self-entitled life, pride and integrity are qualities with which Johnson has never been burdened.
It has been reported that number 10 staff were messaged to wipe their phones of items concerning lockdown gatherings, which suggests the messenger at least might be involved in obstruction of justice, a much more serious allegation than breaking covid regulations. So, might the MET investigations be truly sub judice after all? The MET has messed up this whole affair and it could get a whole lot worse if they find such evidence and then fail to follow it up.
Hi David
Could you explain why the report only refers to standards and appropriateness and not regulations and laws?
Secondly, did Johnson lie to parliament?
Were his lips moving?
Because the terms of reference made it clear that Sue Gray could not decide whether activities broke the law. It was a civil service investigation; the civil service has no regulatory powers.
‘Boris’: a friend of yours?
The Suspect, as per John Crace, is so much more appropriate.
Some of the gaps in the report as published are breathtaking.
For example, Statement #5 identifies 16 discrete gatherings and gives an extremely high level description for each (e.g. “14. January 2021; a gathering in No. 10 Downing Street on the departure of two No. 10 private secretaries”.
But immediately preceding, Statement #4 states, “Where there were credible allegations relating to other gatherings these could also be investigated”, which is lifted from the terms of reference, provided in Annex A. Those terms include a shorter list of just 3 events.
1. Nowhere in the report is a statement made to the effect that the now 16 separate events identified represent the exhaustive list of “unjustifiable gatherings” that took place during the periods of lock down.
2. The choice of language seems deliberate and suspicious: only “credible *allegations*” and no mention of “credible *evidence*”… Firstly, it seems entirely possible that individuals willing to break the newly-enacted laws might also be disinclined to make allegations of their own mis-conduct. Secondly, why no mention of what should be more substantive evidence from, for example, access cards or visitors logs.
Are we expected to believe that there is no log of visitors to No. 10? No CCTV? That all seems somewhat unlikely.
I’d be interested if anyone can comment on the legality of actions claimed in recent reporting, such as this piece:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/partygate-phones-clean-up-investigation-sue-gray-b1991055.html
in which an anonymous source indicates that they were advised to “clean up” their phones to remove evidence of parties held at No. 10.
Multi-part question:
1. Since “perverting the course of justice” is a common law offence with a maximum sentence of life in prison, what is the point at which a court could find that instructions suggested in the Independent’s article raise to that threshold?
2. If it can be shown that multiple individuals have coordinated their answers, or have communicated and collaborated to disguise facts from either Ms. Gray or the Met, would that rise to the crime of “Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice”, which itself has a maximum punishment of 7 years in prison?
From some of the reporting we’ve seen around these events – and we need to remember that just because something is reported in a newspaper doesn’t mean that the reporting is either truthful or accurate – there are suggestions that in some respects the cover-up here could be far, far worse than the (£800 fine for) the crime.
Interested to know if this is a fair assessment…
As I read the story in The Independent, the “wipe your phone” conversations occurred before any reference to the Met. According to the Charging Standards for Public Justice Offences, published by the Crown Prosecution Service, perverting the course of justice is committed when an accused: does an act or series of acts; which has or have a tendency to pervert; and which is or are intended to pervert; the course of public justice.
In turn, “the course of justice starts when:
* an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or
* investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or
* proceedings have started or are about to start.”
The Charging Standards also list “examples of acts which may constitute the offence,” one of which is “concealing or destroying evidence concerning a police investigation to avoid arrest.” Along similar lines, the Charging Standards state “It is likely that perverting the course of justice will be the appropriate charge when: … the obstruction of a police investigation is premeditated, prolonged or elaborate….” Many of the other examples given in the Charging Standards imply that the police are already involved in the underlying matter when the interference with the course of justice occurs.
If I recall correctly, there wasn’t any sign that the whole affair would be referred to the Met until the last week before Gray issued her abridged report. Because of the sequence of events, it seems to me that a charge of perverting the course of justice wouldn’t lie with respect to the conversations reported in The Independent.
We have also seen some commentary around this event that hints that these gatherings were arranged and/or coordinated using “Whatsapp”, the Facebook messaging solution that promises secure, end-to-end encryption. But at least two recent Conservative Home Secretaries – Amber Rudd – https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/whatsapp-encryption-is-totally-unacceptable-says-home-secretary-amber-rudd-a3499416.html and Priti Patel – https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/facebook-encryption-messenger-whatsapp-apps-priti-patel-five-eyes-a9028371.html … have both demanded that the government be given the right to read people’s WhatsApp messages. This takes us into some potentially interesting, “what’s good for the goose” territory. Will the government issue a blanket prohibition on the use of this sort of messaging technology for official government business? Something backed up by “punishable by instant dismissal”? Or is this merely another example of, “Do what I say, not what I do…” ?
A nation gets the Government that it deserves.
The Metropolitan Police seem to be left with ‘investigating’ 12 separate incidents, most occurring on different days, which could result in fixed penalty notices. I have yet to see any explanation as to why these 12 offences, which might result in such an outcome, have to be lumped into one enquiry, the result being published at once.
If 12 burglaries or assaults, occurred at different times, locations and by different people, they would be reported on individually once the enquiry into each incident was complete. The only exception would be if one person had a hand in all the cases -so maybe that might be the answer to one collective report!
If you make the, not unreasonable, assumption that the PM is without shame or genuine contrition or even a basic understanding of his own casual vandalism to the constitution and respect in which high office is held, it is alarming to consider how long a fuse that ‘time-bomb’ may have.
The police will undertake their investigation, which will take weeks not days.
The PM refused to commit, in the House of Commons, to the full publication of Sue Gray’s investigation and findings on conclusion of that police investigation. His spokesman, later in the day, stated there was an intention to seek a further update from Sue Gray at that point.
There is little reason to take that statement at face value. The PM has spent weeks saying he is unable to answer questions in parliament regarding what he did, or did not, know or do, on the utterly specious grounds that to do so would “prejudge” the Sue Gray inquiry.
Yesterday, he refused again, this time on the no less specious grounds that he cannot answer those questions because there is an ongoing police investigation.
If, at the end of their investigation, the police “reasonably believe” an offence has been committed they may issue Fixed Penalty Notices (“FPN’s”) against any attendees and organisers. There is no statutory right appeal for FPN’s, but if the recipients do not accept their guilt and refuse to pay, then, after another 28 days, the CPS could then bring a prosecution in the Magistrates Court. There are, of course, routes to appeal a summary conviction in Magistrates Court.
That is a timeline of months not weeks, and there can be little doubt the PM would happily drag us all through to the bitter end, refusing to address matters because of an ongoing criminal matter.
I say that because any other Prime Minister (except possibly Robert Walpole) would have resigned on the day they announced to the House of Commons: (i) the existence of 12 concurrent criminal investigations into alleged breaches of COVID Regulations, 8 of which related to events in his office and 1 to an event in his flat; (ii) a positive finding by a civil servant that “some of the gatherings in question represent a serious failure to observe..the standards expected of the entire British population at the time”; and, (iii) a positive finding by the same civil servant that “There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times”.
They would have said that that while they do not accept they had broken the law these matters had become a distraction which was preventing the proper business of government and the execution of the government’s policy objectives.
Any other Prime Minister would have recognised that anything else is unseemly, that it is the clinging to the trappings of office without regard to the purpose of office.
The silence of the Tory front an back benches yesterday, brought to mind (by way of contrast) a passage from one of the great resignation speeches of the 1990’s (a decade from which it is hard to pick the best), that of Norman Lamont: “There is something wrong with the way in which we make our decisions. The Government listen too much to the pollsters and the party managers. The trouble is that they are not even very good at politics, and they are entering too much into policy decisions. As a result, there is too much short-termism, too much reacting to events, and not enough shaping of events. We give the impression of being in office but not in power. Far too many important decisions are made for 36 hours’ publicity. Yes, we are politicians as well as policy-makers; but we are also the trustees of the nation. I believe that in politics one should decide what is right and then decide the presentation, not the other way round. Unless this approach is changed, the Government will not survive, and will not deserve to survive”.
The time has surely come for Tory MPs to channel their inner Lamont and call time on this sorry affair.
It’s all such a waste of time.
Few people in the country now support Johnson, or are taken in by his ‘very important’ ‘statesman like’ meetings in Eastern Europe. We all know he’s a liar and coward, who hides in fridges, flies to Afghanistan or sets up meetings with Putin when the going gets tough and he can’t face the flack. I wonder if his isolation because of Covid the other week was another excuse not to appear in parliament and answer difficult questions.
What a total waste of space, and meanwhile the real work of government isn’t being done. Oh, there’s lots of work being done to shore up the right and vested interests, and to take away our rights, but plans to improve this country are nowhere in sight.
… and the number of U turns – another one today on mandatory vaccination …
Sadly I know I’m probably speaking to the converted.