boris and rishi partygate fines

[wearthefoxhat]

Number of Downing Street fines has doubled, Sue Gray report still to come.

Does she actually exist?

[Derek27]

BJ can't resign now, not while there's monkeypox to deal with.

[Derek27]

BJ's been caught having a secret meeting with Sue Gray. Looks like even her report won't be the end of the matter now.

[Derek27]

I love these "the ABC cost £XYZ" comments ... that's only the case if you wouldn't have employed those conducting the investigation or had to employ others to do other jobs! The 'cost' is what the staff/resources would have done instead but didn't. I'm assuming in the main the staff conducting the review were pen-pushers so the 'cost' was that they could have pushed different pens!

Not necessarily. That money could have been spent fighting crime and investigating the burglaries that they didn't have time for. Some of that cost was spent on overtime. One guy was working late every night while his wife was having an affair. He found out and they're now getting divorced, with three children caught in a broken family. That's the cost.

[firlandsfarm]

... One guy was working late every night while his wife was having an affair. He found out and they're now getting divorced, with three children caught in a broken family. That's the cost.

So him temporarily working late is the reason why she wanted a new d**k! Really, you don't think there were other contributing factors ... that is scraping the barrel of blame! I'm surprised you haven't accused Boris of being the other man and/or maybe the father of the 3 kids!

Not necessarily. That money could have been spent fighting crime and investigating the burglaries that they didn't have time for. Some of that cost was spent on overtime.

As I said they were probably not crime fighters, they were most like form checkers and pen pushers. Anyway, Capt. Hindsight pushed and pushed for this waste of resources action so any cost/waste is all down to him. Perhaps it's karma that he is now being investigated. This forum is full of odds assessors so what are the odds he will be found guilty and if so that he will resign without a squeak or wriggle his way out of doing so citing some spurious reason why it would not be appropriate any more? Can't wait for that.

And while on the subject of the investigation I'm waiting for all the critics of the 'garden party' to step forward and apologise for the false criticisms they threw at Boris. They can form a queue down Whitehall but I am not holding my breath because they know they can make any accusation they wish and when not found true they just keep their heads down having made their political gain with lies. Now where have I heard reference to lies before in respect of the investigation?

[Derek27]

... One guy was working late every night while his wife was having an affair. He found out and they're now getting divorced, with three children caught in a broken family. That's the cost.

So him temporarily working late is the reason why she wanted a new d**k! Really, you don't think there were other contributing factors ... that is scraping the barrel of blame! I'm surprised you haven't accused Boris of being the other man and/or maybe the father of the 3 kids!

I was just taking the piss.

This forum is full of odds assessors so what are the odds he will be found guilty and if so that he will resign without a squeak or wriggle his way out of doing so citing some spurious reason why it would not be appropriate any more? Can't wait for that.

No FPN: 1.25

FPN followed by resignation: 5.9

FPN followed by refusal to resign: 34

If there is any ambiguity over the final outcome, then Derek may determine, using his reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to him at the relevant time.

Derek reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled.

And while on the subject of the investigation I'm waiting for all the critics of the 'garden party' to step forward and apologise for the false criticisms they threw at Boris.

What false criticisms?

[firlandsfarm]

BJ's been caught having a secret meeting with Sue Gray. Looks like even her report won't be the end of the matter now.

He had a meeting. Why secret?

[Derek27]

BJ's been caught having a secret meeting with Sue Gray. Looks like even her report won't be the end of the matter now.

He had a meeting. Why secret?

The meeting took place a month ago and a Sky reporter only just found out about it.

BJ will probably argue that no rules were broken and on this occasion that may be true. But Gray's report should be independent, the whole process should be transparent, nobody as yet knows who instigated the meeting or what was discussed, no regard for public perception despite the fact that his integrity is rock-bottom. The whole situation stinks.

[firlandsfarm]

I was just taking the piss.

No FPN: 1.25

Am I not surprised the bookie has fixed the result and arranged for Capt. Hindsight to be treated different to Boris!

What false criticisms?

Well let's start with the many claims he broke the law over the Garden Party and lied about doing so.

[firlandsfarm]

The meeting took place a month ago and a Sky reporter only just found out about it.

I had a meeting over 40 years ago with my boss and Sky News still haven't found out about it ... I didn't realise that makes it a secret meeting. So let me get this straight ... if a reporter is crap at their job and doesn't unearth a meeting for a month then it must have been a secret meeting. That's good to know.

But do tell, what are the disclosure rules applicable to PM's meetings ... may I suggest you start by defining a meeting and then move on to the obligations for disclosure.

[Derek27]

I was just taking the piss.

No FPN: 1.25

Am I not surprised the bookie has fixed the result and arranged for Capt. Hindsight to be treated different to Boris!

It's typical of some people to think a defendant will either be found guilty or get away with the crime. Convicting one man and clearing another doesn't mean they're being treated differently, their behaviour was different.

What false criticisms?

Well let's start with the many claims he broke the law over the Garden Party and lied about doing so.

He did break the law and he lied repeatedly about it. That's crystal clear, as clear as daylight, as clear as a panel of glass that's so clean you walk through it!

[Derek27]

Both parties deny calling the meeting. One of them's lying. I wonder which?

We need an investigation into the investigation.

[Derek27]

The meeting took place a month ago and a Sky reporter only just found out about it.

I had a meeting over 40 years ago with my boss and Sky News still haven't found out about it ... I didn't realise that makes it a secret meeting. So let me get this straight ... if a reporter is crap at their job and doesn't unearth a meeting for a month then it must have been a secret meeting. That's good to know.

But do tell, what are the disclosure rules applicable to PM's meetings ... may I suggest you start by defining a meeting and then move on to the obligations for disclosure.

Your meeting was not of public interest and there was no requirement to be transparent to the public. Not publicising something where you have an obligation to do is keeping it secret,

We're not talking about a PM meeting but a meeting with his investigator. It's like a judge having a private meeting with a defendant (who happens to be his boss) and his attorney to discuss the case, behind the prosecution's back. In legal terms that would be a breach of natural justice. In this case it could mean Sue Gray's report loses all credibility.

[firlandsfarm]

Your meeting was not of public interest and there was no requirement to be transparent to the public. Not publicising something where you have an obligation to do is keeping it secret,

We're not talking about a PM meeting but a meeting with his investigator. It's like a judge having a private meeting with a defendant (who happens to be his boss) and his attorney to discuss the case, behind the prosecution's back. In legal terms that would be a breach of natural justice. In this case it could mean Sue Gray's report loses all credibility.

How do you know my meeting was not of public interest ... if you don't know who I met and what was discussed you can't say that. Maybe we discussed the state of the Economy and how we could manipulate share prices to weaken the economy and give the USSR as it was then a door to ruin the BofE! So what you are saying is Boris has to disclose every person he meets. Does "good morning" to everybody he passes in a Downing Street corridor constitute a meeting (it could be an agreed secret code to take action A or B)? What about his chauffeur ... is that a meeting? His PA/secretary? Maybe his wife? Maybe his children? Who is going to dictate what is a meeting, you? Who ever it is they would have to be advised of every word said by Boris and said to him because who knows what's of public interest until they know what it is. You talk great theory Derek but haven't a clue about practicalities ... just a typical LL who thinks their view is always the right view and only match it to the particular point at issue that you want 'corrected' with no regard for the full practicalities of what is being preached.

[Derek27]

Your meeting was not of public interest and there was no requirement to be transparent to the public. Not publicising something where you have an obligation to do is keeping it secret,

We're not talking about a PM meeting but a meeting with his investigator. It's like a judge having a private meeting with a defendant (who happens to be his boss) and his attorney to discuss the case, behind the prosecution's back. In legal terms that would be a breach of natural justice. In this case it could mean Sue Gray's report loses all credibility.

How do you know my meeting was not of public interest ... if you don't know who I met and what was discussed you can't say that. Maybe we discussed the state of the Economy and how we could manipulate share prices to weaken the economy and give the USSR as it was then a door to ruin the BofE! So what you are saying is Boris has to disclose every person he meets. Does "good morning" to everybody he passes in a Downing Street corridor constitute a meeting (it could be an agreed secret code to take action A or B)? What about his chauffeur ... is that a meeting? His PA/secretary? Maybe his wife? Maybe his children? Who is going to dictate what is a meeting, you? Who ever it is they would have to be advised of every word said by Boris and said to him because who knows what's of public interest until they know what it is. You talk great theory Derek but haven't a clue about practicalities ... just a typical LL who thinks their view is always the right view and only match it to the particular point at issue that you want 'corrected' with no regard for the full practicalities of what is being preached.

You're missing the point entirely. I wasn't referring to public interest in the literal sense.

Capture.GIF

Perhaps I should have used the term "duty". It's rather like a teacher meeting one of his students on the weekend. He may have a perfectly good reason for the meeting. But if he doesn't get clearance from the headmaster and the child's parents it's understandable that people may suspect hanky-panky's going on.

Justice has to be transparent so we have a right to know about anything that could potentially be interference with the investigation. At present, nobody is owning up to requesting the meeting so somebody's hiding the truth, and they must have something to hide. Either way, it diminishes the credibility of Sue Gray's report.

BJ may have felt a bit better now that he knows he's not getting any more fines and Starmer's under investigation but a month ago he was in a deep hole. You'd think he'd have stopped digging.