Gripe of the day - What is yours?

[Sir Trev]

My towbar-mount cycle carrier has arrived and I tried it on the car. Good job I checked all the electrics as I have no rh indicator... The left makes a very audible tick tock (I assume there is a module somewhere in the rear of the car) but the right makes no noise. Bulbs out and checked OK, the other bulbs in the cluster are all fine so my guess is duff fitting. Of course the installer cannot come and see me until next week. Grrrrrrr.... When something costs north of a Monkey I don't expect my interior trim to fall off within a day (he came back to fix it, it's fallen off again) and I perhaps foolishly expect it to work!!

[DJ123]

What brand did you go for Trev? It sounds like an expensive paperweight currently

[redtrummy]

svenrico Reckon its already happening - Police ask for no disclosure, its beginning to smell!

[Luckypants]

Non-disclosure as police officers are complicit in the law breaking and need to 'refine' the evidence.

[Bibio]

police officers are not the law and can only guess that a crime has been committed. it takes a judge and sometimes a jury to rule that there has using evidence. evidence can be gathered and a warrant put in place for your collection by police officers.

never ever admit your guilt. politicians know this and this is why they hire briefs to fight their case.

[embee]

The whole plan is now clear.

Deny anything happened, but it complied with the rules anyway.
PM/Met Commissioner consult.
Met place hands over eyes and ears and say they've seen/heard no evidence.
When it gets too compelling, PM commissions an enquiry by a civil servant to report directly to the PM, the PM thus retains ultimate control of the proceedings and reporting
Met Comm says they will only carry out an investigation if the potential perpetrators knew or should have known it was against the law (when did that apply to the rest of us?)
When it becomes clear that evidence will be "embarrasing", pass snippets to Met and they say they will now start an investigation.
This means that either they take control of proceedings, the Gray report is seriously diluted and restricted and it takes, what, a couple of years, maybe five, for the Met to come to any conclusion (plus the DPP have to get off their backsides) or if the Gray report is published and includes proper incriminating evidence then the Met claim that a fair trial would be impossible and the investigation is halted, PM claims he is exonerated.
PM keeps full control, kicks the can far far down the road with the intention of delaying anything useful coming out before the next general election.
Job done ........ for now.

Putin would be proud of it.

[ethariel]

Political News People and armchair pundits - Why are police not investigating!!! It's a cover up!!

2 days later

Political news People and armchair pundits - The police investigating - It's a cover up!!

Don't you love non biased reporting.

Besides an MP can say anything they want whilst in the House and cannot be held accountable outside it for regardless (House sanctions are possible) but no charges outside it may be brought in any way, shape or form for what is said in the House.

[Craig380]

The point here is that the police have requested parts of the Gray report be redacted because "it might prejudice their investigation", which is utter b*llsh*t.

The report is purely factual, which is useful evidence for the police, and would not prejudice their investigation. Furthermore, any contraventions are punished by fixed penalty notices or (at worst) a judgement by a magistrate, NOT a jury. This is because the regulations are absolute: people either did break regulations, or they didn't. So the report cannot possibly prejudice anything.

The Met intervening as they have is a purely political move to cover their own @rses, and the Governments'.

[Bibio]

its not summer...... but for some interesting facts about the seasons and waste some time check out the met office website.

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by Craig380

The point here is that the police have requested parts of the Gray report be redacted because "it might prejudice their investigation", which is utter b*llsh*t.

The report is purely factual, which is useful evidence for the police, and would not prejudice their investigation. Furthermore, any contraventions are punished by fixed penalty notices or (at worst) a judgement by a magistrate, NOT a jury. This is because the regulations are absolute: people either did break regulations, or they didn't. So the report cannot possibly prejudice anything.

The Met intervening as they have is a purely political move to cover their own @rses, and the Governments'.

I don't agree. Yes, any factual items (such as copies of emails, statements about discussions etc) could probably be reported without problem but the Sue Gray report is not just a compilation of factual information, it's expected to draw conclusions on wrongdoing.

But drawing conclusions against criminal law from any facts established is a matter for the Courts in the legal system, not the Civil Service.

So the report can only offer an 'opinion' on whether Downing Street employees or MPs broke the laws in place at the time (just like the rest of us), although that opinion probably carries more weight due to the evidence gathered and worked through that the rest of us haven't, and presumably the Police haven't yet.

So, for example, if Sue Gray writes that in her conclusions section something like 'It was unwise to arrange these events but I don't think they went so far as to breach the Coronavirus Regulations' then it definitely prejudices what conclusion the Police can draw and what other evidence they would need to gather to conclude something different. Similarly the other way - can you imagine the media/public uproar if the Police/CPS conclude there was no grounds for prosecution if a published Civil Service internal suggests otherwise as the basis for internal disciplinary reprimands? It all changes the balance of probability point for their investigation, which matters a lot when trying to demonstrate a case can be proved "beyond reasonable doubt".

Like you, I'm suspicious that there's political murk in the mix but it's not as simple as just one or the other - there is some legitimacy to the Police request to avoid disclosure that could be prejudicial.