Jaycey

African Refugee
Boris's fibs
It seems Boris is easily led astray--by, well, most everyone :unsure: And we would have him negotiate with the likes of Putin? :rolleyes:

We are a country in deep shit. :(
If we must depend on BJ to save our bacon then we'll be in it even deeper :(

PLEASE nominate Kermit instead!
 

Kanga

Member
Boris's fibs
Easily led astray, is that why he has so many children?
That's right, led astray by some wanton hussy no doubt, just proves a woman's place is in the wrong. There can't be that many women with poor taste surely?
There's a reason for a zip on your trousers boys. . . .
 

mollag

Kipper restorer
Boris's fibs
That's right, led astray by some wanton hussy no doubt, just proves a woman's place is in the wrong. There can't be that many women with poor taste surely?
There's a reason for a zip on your trousers boys. . . .
The magistrate explained the reason to me, he still put me on the S.O register though :(
 

Camden

Member
Boris's fibs
It looks as if Met Chief Cressida Dick after at first delaying a decision on any investigations on Partygate which helped Boris at the time.

She has swept in again at an opportune moment for Boris.... Could this be her payback to the Tories for allowing an extension to her contract, by 2 years , after what has been a controversial term, the extension granted by Priti Patel ?? ... Ms Dick has now neutered the Sue Gray report ?....

No coincidence it seems Boris was able in advance use an excuse, before this announcement on this new development at PMQ's he couldn't answer questions on an "prejudice a Police investigation"



It stinks of a cover up': Anger over Met Police's request in Sue Gray's Downing Street parties report​

"A purely factual report by Sue Gray cannot possibly prejudice a police investigation."

There’s been significant backlash after Scotland Yard revealed that the Sue Gray inquiry has been asked to make ‘minimal reference’ to events being investigated by the police.

Sue Gray’s report was expected to be published earlier this week, but it has faced delays following the announcement that the Metropolitan Police were launching their own investigation into alleged parties held at Downing Street during lockdown.

 

Tenpin

The Yorkshireman
Boris's fibs
This is the opinion of someone (not me) with a legal background regarding so-called Partygate......

1. It's a really odd scenario.

The photos/email evidence re gatherings is unlikely to be admissible because:
a) Illegally obtained, and
b) They've been altered by cropping, pixelating or blanking out names.

2. The gatherer of the evidence is required to explain the evidence, how obtained, disclose originals & any supporting documentation which may change how the evidence is perceived prior to the 'cherry picking'.

3. Then there's the potential offences committed in obtaining & publishing the evidence.

As a lawyer advising, I'd be pushing for questioning of those who disclosed the illegally obtained evidence, as there's no public interest defence available.

4. Who, what, when, where, how? Unlikely to get answers but then it opens up the dialogue to the potential offences under:
RIPA (public servant/officials/body),
Official Secrets Act & a whole myriad of data protection & human rights provisions.
& breaches of Codes of Conduct.

5. Fixed penalty fine(s) for those found to be in breach of Covid Regulations.

Potential jail sentences for those who obtained & published evidence illegally obtained.

6. Will the Met investigation focus entirely on the gatherings & merely perform a box ticking exercise, or will it look to the illegally obtained evidence & the investigation will become something more serious?

7. Those who've gathered & published evidence in theory face stiffer sentences that those who may have breached Covid Regulations.

Discounting illegally obtained evidence leaves very little for the Police to go on & it's what they're obliged to do in law, but the mob are baying.

8. Politically, is it better to accept a fine for maybe 1 breach just to draw a line under it (although unlikely to satisfy the media), or to turn it into a far reaching investigation with serious implications for those involved?

9. Personally, I'd go for the latter. Leaking confidential information is serious. The unscrupulous or skint can find themselves tempted to disclose information to less benign individuals than the media. Passwords, details of room layouts, security set ups...

10. As events unfold in Eastern Europe, the notion that leaking photographs of protected areas of government premises is just fodder for the Press is less persuasive. It becomes something more serious that cannot be overlooked.

11. Also worth noting the anomaly re Cummings.

He escaped a fixed penalty notice following Barnard Castle due to lapse of time.

He now seems to be offering evidence in the hope those who protected him are culpable of the same offence.
 

IbrahimAbi

Grey wisdom
Boris's fibs
Hiding behind legal scenarios does not change the fact that cheating lying rule breakers should not be running our country. It really is time to scrape him off our shoes.

I wonder what 'the lawyer' would make of this
 
Last edited:

Camden

Member
Boris's fibs
This is the opinion of someone (not me) with a legal background regarding so-called Partygate......

1. It's a really odd scenario.

The photos/email evidence re gatherings is unlikely to be admissible because:
a) Illegally obtained, and
b) They've been altered by cropping, pixelating or blanking out names.

2. The gatherer of the evidence is required to explain the evidence, how obtained, disclose originals & any supporting documentation which may change how the evidence is perceived prior to the 'cherry picking'.

3. Then there's the potential offences committed in obtaining & publishing the evidence.

As a lawyer advising, I'd be pushing for questioning of those who disclosed the illegally obtained evidence, as there's no public interest defence available.

4. Who, what, when, where, how? Unlikely to get answers but then it opens up the dialogue to the potential offences under:
RIPA (public servant/officials/body),
Official Secrets Act & a whole myriad of data protection & human rights provisions.
& breaches of Codes of Conduct.

5. Fixed penalty fine(s) for those found to be in breach of Covid Regulations.

Potential jail sentences for those who obtained & published evidence illegally obtained.

6. Will the Met investigation focus entirely on the gatherings & merely perform a box ticking exercise, or will it look to the illegally obtained evidence & the investigation will become something more serious?

7. Those who've gathered & published evidence in theory face stiffer sentences that those who may have breached Covid Regulations.

Discounting illegally obtained evidence leaves very little for the Police to go on & it's what they're obliged to do in law, but the mob are baying.

8. Politically, is it better to accept a fine for maybe 1 breach just to draw a line under it (although unlikely to satisfy the media), or to turn it into a far reaching investigation with serious implications for those involved?

9. Personally, I'd go for the latter. Leaking confidential information is serious. The unscrupulous or skint can find themselves tempted to disclose information to less benign individuals than the media. Passwords, details of room layouts, security set ups...

10. As events unfold in Eastern Europe, the notion that leaking photographs of protected areas of government premises is just fodder for the Press is less persuasive. It becomes something more serious that cannot be overlooked.

11. Also worth noting the anomaly re Cummings.

He escaped a fixed penalty notice following Barnard Castle due to lapse of time.

He now seems to be offering evidence in the hope those who protected him are culpable of the same offence.

Who is this person Tenpin ? giving his knowledge from his background in the Law on partygate ??? no link to show us his credentials or credibility in legal advice ... could be just some idelogical opinion in line with your own ? Like I said a link would be helpful ?
 
Last edited:

429nufc

Member
Boris's fibs
How do you know any photographs were illegally obtained ? is your friend saying so because he believes the subjects did not give consent or the photographs were taken in areas that prohibit photography?
 

Latest Posts

Top Bottom