The Conservative Party - Part Two.

[Guest sibon]

13 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

 any meaningful police investigation will be even longer off.

It really shouldn't be. The records of who was and wasn't in Downing Street should be accurate. The nature of the gatherings is pretty clear. So, it is a simple matter of issuing fixed penalty notices to those attending the parties. Not complex at all.

 

It didn't take long to investigate these transgressions:

 

https://mancunion.com/2021/02/12/fallowfield-fines-gmp/

 

I don't see why the Downing Street parties should be treated any differently.

[Litotes 63]

1 hour ago, West 77 said:

Absolutely no rules broken by Boris because he didn't believe any of these alleged gatherings were parties.  A women from Morecambe said on Question Time last week that she wouldn't even bother putting her lippy on to attend one of these gatherings because no way were they parties.

 

Ignorance of the law (or disdain for it) is no defence. I didn't believe I was going over the speed limit officer...

[ECCOnoob 1,044]

1 hour ago, sibon said:

It really shouldn't be. The records of who was and wasn't in Downing Street should be accurate. The nature of the gatherings is pretty clear. So, it is a simple matter of issuing fixed penalty notices to those attending the parties. Not complex at all.

 

It didn't take long to investigate these transgressions:

 

https://mancunion.com/2021/02/12/fallowfield-fines-gmp/

 

I don't see why the Downing Street parties should be treated any differently.

Well firstly it is because Downing Street is an official workplace filled with people authorised to be there not what a load of randoms collecting in  each other's student houses. 

 

Secondly it has to be established what exactly constitutes an "illegal gathering" bearing in mind that many of the participants in these alleged parties were already in said workplace attending various meetings all day. Does having some wine whilst discussing business in the Downing Street Gardens really constitute a party? Does gathering round to present the boss with a birthday cake at the end of a board meeting fall within the definition of some Rave Up?  There is certainly nothing 'clear' about it at this stage, even less as we are months and months after the supposed events.

 

That's before we even get onto the massive amounts of nuance as to who exactly was the instigator of these gatherings? What was understood to be the purpose of them? How long they went on? What else has been done during the gatherings?     Working through the layers and layers of civil servants sending out there dozens and dozens of emails a day, establishing accuracy sufficient to prove guilt, in order for it to be firmly noted a law was broken and enforceable really isn't as simple as you make out.

 

The Sue Gray report is one thing but proving illegality is a totally different matter.

Edited January 31, 2022 by ECCOnoob

[Guest sibon]

13 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Well firstly it is because Downing Street is an official workplace filled with people authorised to be there not what a load of randoms collecting in  each other's student houses. 

 

Secondly it has to be established what exactly constitutes an "illegal gathering" bearing in mind that many of the participants in these alleged parties were already in said workplace attending various meetings all day. Does having some wine whilst discussing business in the Downing Street Gardens really constitute a party? Does gathering round to present the boss with a birthday cake at the end of a board meeting fall within the definition of some Rave Up?  There is certainly nothing 'clear' about it at this stage, even less as we are months and months after the supposed events.

 

That's before we even get onto the massive amounts of nuance as to who exactly was the instigator of these gatherings? What was understood to be the purpose of them? How long they went on? What else has been done during the gatherings?     Working through the layers and layers of civil servants sending out there dozens and dozens of emails a day, establishing accuracy sufficient to prove guilt, in order for it to be firmly noted a law was broken and enforceable really isn't as simple as you make out.

 

The Sue Gray report is one thing but proving illegality is a totally different matter.

That's utter nonsense.

 

The rules on gatherings are clear. Attending gatherings is punishable by fixed penalty. The Met need to issue fines to those present. If those fined want to contest them, they have that right.

 

This should take a couple of days maximum. 

[hackey lad 3,979]

5 minutes ago, sibon said:

That's utter nonsense.

 

The rules on gatherings are clear. Attending gatherings is punishable by fixed penalty. The Met need to issue fines to those present. If those fined want to contest them, they have that right.

 

This should take a couple of days maximum. 

Best get on the phone to Cressida then 

[altus 540]

2 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

How many times do I have to scream it out loud, getting rid of Boris does not simply waive some magic wand and allow Starmer to take control. An election is a long long way off and by the looks of it any meaningful police investigation will be even longer off.

You're going to have to keep screaming it out loud until it finally dawns on you that, like for the Tory MPs and other party members who want him gone, it's about getting rid of someone who is unfit to be PM not about replacing him with Starmer (even though some may welcome that, they know it's not going to happen). The best hope for a Labour government is for Johnson to stay in place and lead the Tories into the next election. Labour supporters think he's such a bad PM, and doing such harm to the country, that they want him replaced even though that would make it more likely that the Tories would win the next election.

[ECCOnoob 1,044]

1 hour ago, sibon said:

That's utter nonsense.

 

The rules on gatherings are clear. Attending gatherings is punishable by fixed penalty. The Met need to issue fines to those present. If those fined want to contest them, they have that right.

 

This should take a couple of days maximum.

Oh right, that simple is it.

 

So all those doctors, nurses and consultants who were gathering in their workplaces are all subject to fixed penalty? All those police officers, shopworkers, engineers, maintenance workers, care workers gathering each and every day in their buildings should all be convicted right?

 

What do you not understand. Workplaces had exemptions and somebody has a very difficult task of going through all these allegations and evidence to establish with sufficient credibility which of these alleged actually broke the law.   

 

Ultimately, if none of them did - that's it. No crime.  No criminal charge. Internal rule-breaking, poor judgement, lack of thoughts for public opinion is a different matter entirely. That is not legal issues thus the police cannot not prosecute.

 

This is not some feeble attempt at defence, I am just trying to give a realistic view of what exactly happens in these sorts of investigations and how timely and complex they can be.

Edited January 31, 2022 by ECCOnoob

[Dromedary 166]

1 hour ago, sibon said:

That's utter nonsense.

 

The rules on gatherings are clear. Attending gatherings is punishable by fixed penalty.

That depends on the definition of gatherings. If they are considered by the Met to be in breach of the law then a fixed penalty notice may be given. The may bit is important as its not automatic and can depend on the circumstance.

 

Quote

The Met need to issue fines to those present. If those fined want to contest them, they have that right.

They don't have that right as that does not apply to Coronavirus laws and the only thing they can do is refuse to pay or seek a judicial review. The police or CPS then have 6 months to bring criminal charges.

 

Quote

This should take a couple of days maximum. 

As stated if they refuse to pay or challenge it by judicial review it could take at least 6 months.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Dromedary

[Guest sibon]

35 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Oh right, that simple is it.

 

So all those doctors, nurses and consultants who were gathering in their workplaces are all subject to fixed penalty? All those police officers, shopworkers, engineers, maintenance workers, care workers gathering each and every day in their buildings should all be convicted right?

 

What do you not understand. Workplaces had exemptions and somebody has a very difficult task of going through all these allegations and evidence to establish with sufficient credibility which of these alleged actually broke the law.   

 

Ultimately, if none of them did - that's it. No crime.  No criminal charge. Internal rule-breaking, poor judgement, lack of thoughts for public opinion is a different matter entirely. That is not legal issues thus the police cannot not prosecute.

 

This is not some feeble attempt at defence, I am just trying to give a realistic view of what exactly happens in these sorts of investigations and how timely and complex they can be.

It really is that simple.

 

Or, at least it was that simple for thousands of ordinary citizens. 

 

Identify the partygoers from the photos. Issue fixed penalties. Job done.

 

It isn't difficult. Unless you are trying to protect your mates. 

21 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

 

 

They don't have that right as that does not apply to Coronavirus laws and the only thing they can do is refuse to pay or seek a judicial review. The police or CPS then have 6 months to bring criminal charges.

 

As I said, they have the right to challenge the fixed penalty.

 

This would all have been much easier if the police had done their job correctly at the time.

 

Or, if the people involved had accepted that they had been caught out. All that this charade achieves is a bit of can kicking, and further damage to the reputation of our government. 

[Dromedary 166]

13 hours ago, sibon said:

As I said, they have the right to challenge the fixed penalty.

No they don't as there is no formal right of appeal or challenge that exists under covid laws to challenge a fixed penalty notice. They can chose not to pay and face criminal charges in court for non payment which is not challenging it as you would be found guilty for non payment of a fine. Or they may be able to seek a judicial review (very costly) to determine by a Judge whether the police acted lawfully in issuing the fixed penalty in the first place.

 

But I suppose its a matter of legal semantics.

 

*Just to add to help*

 

Once you have accepted a fixed penalty notice you are also agreeing that you are guilty of the offence. If you don't agree to receiving one when you were given the choice then you will be charged and it will normally go to court. 

 

Quote

This would all have been much easier if the police had done their job correctly at the time.

But was it brought to their attention at the time? The only police I have seen in Downing Street are the one tasked with guarding it.

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Dromedary

[L00b 441]

12 hours ago, Dromedary said:

(…)

 

Now you are getting to sound like Anna..... 

You say that like it’s an insult 🙄

 

Anna and I disagree on a lot of topics, but one thing I shan’t ever take away from her, is her empathy. And in this day and age, you need bags and bags of the stuff to avoid falling into either side of the divisions which the Conservatives relentlessly push onto the British public, while Labour continually let them, and to keep a humanist, best common interest perspective.

 

So if that’s your only take, that I’m starting to sound like Anna, then there is little surprise that you cannot envisage politics and democracy to evolve in the UK absent some cataclysmic event or other. 😔

Edited February 1, 2022 by L00b

[Mister M 1,625]

1 hour ago, West 77 said:

The issue is whether Boris knowingly misled parliament regarding the existence of these alleged parties. Boris hasn't knowingly misled parliament if he didn't believe the gatherings were parties and were gatherings of work colleagues.  

 

 

The woman was in the audience of the last edition of Question Time which was filmed in Morecambe and received the biggest cheer of the night  after making her comment.  Not at all any type of gossip because  it's a real report of what a normal member of the public thinks about all this nonsense created by the media. 

So what if she did receive the biggest cheer of the night. Was she there? Nonsense created by the media - don't think so. If that was it then why hasn't Johnson said that? And why did he cancel a phone call from Putin to deal with bit of gossip?

But what if the gatherings were parties and the PM is too dim to distinguish between the two?

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Mister M