Salty seadog
Senior Member
Best to leak that report in all its unredacted glory.
Yet more Tory sleaze….
- Thread starter Fab Foodie
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
swansonj
Regular
AIUI the issue is not that it prejudices a trial but that it prejudices the investigation. If a suspect knows exactly what has already been uncovered (and conversely knows what has not yet been uncovered) because it's all in the Report, they can tailor their answer accordingly: put their hands up to things that they now realise they won't get away with, but keep quiet about things they know but now know that no-one else knows.
Hitchington
Wokey Dick
- Location
- New York-Paris-Pokemon
It's what Shep wanted
mjr
Active Member
Isn't that always true for later interviews during any investigation? And even without publication, suspects and witness will know what they've said and been able to ask and coordinate with others.
I don't get it. It seems all a bit strange.
swansonj
Regular
Do you think the police should investigate any and every allegation of retrospective covid regulation breaches that is made?
Do you think they should apply the law differently to politicians as to non-politicians?
My own answer to the first is clearly "no". There should be criteria as to when to investigate retrospectively and when not.
My own answer to the second is I honestly don't know. Seems to me you can make arguments both ways and they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
newfhouse
pleb
If they were interviewed under caution wouldn’t the police be expected to disclose what they already knew so that it could be discussed in advance by the suspect and their solicitor? Or is there a difference between a voluntary interview and one carried out after arrest?
newfhouse
pleb
It’s the change of heart and the timing that raises suspicions, I think.
swansonj
Regular
The explanation advanced by Dick was that they had criteria. They included some sort of public interest, which was clearly always present (and which is the grounds used to take retrospective action against police officers for covid breaches). But they also included sufficient evidence already available to give confidence that the evidence was there and it wouldn't be a waste of resources (the much-derided "we can't look for evidence until we already have the evidence", but it does make sense when you are considering whether to devote resources to retrospective breaches of rules like this). So her explanation was that they decided to investigate at the point in which the already-available-evidence shifted from media reports to something more substantial.
It's fair enough to be distrustful of the timing but I for one am prepared to listen to that explanation.
D
Deleted member 49
Guest
Well they prosecuted plenty of non politicians for covid breaches so why not this goverment ?
Not sure what the second is ? If it's should Dick still be in her role,I'm 100% certain she shouldn't.
OP
OP
Fab Foodie
Legendary Member
And his mates....
swansonj
Regular
We indeed hear of quite a few people having been prosecuted and fined for Covid breaches. Aren't they, though, mostly people who were detected at the time and refused to stop when given guidance? Are many of them retrospective?
D
Deleted member 49
Guest
So ? Are the goverment not supposed to lead by example....there taking the piss and were meant to just move on and forget it.
Taken from full fact.
However, as shadow health secretary Wes Streeting raised in parliament, the Metropolitan Police is this week prosecuting an individual who participated in a gathering which breached restrictions on 18 December in Ilford—the same night as one of the reported parties in Downing Street. Full Fact has contacted the Met Police for more information about this case.
Mr Starmer has also claimed: “At Westminster Magistrates' Court right now, the CPS are prosecuting over a dozen breaches of Covid restrictions last December including those who hosted parties.”
Mugshot
Über Member
This fella seems to know what he's talking about, and doesn't think it makes much sense.
Not sure what's going on with the buzzing and him jumping up and down mind.
View: https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1487199540721721344?s=20&t=9vQDEXsSyxS-odIdMGJ5MQ
Not sure what's going on with the buzzing and him jumping up and down mind.
View: https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1487199540721721344?s=20&t=9vQDEXsSyxS-odIdMGJ5MQ
stowie
Active Member
This is the argument - one being given by some law commentators - so witholding information is clearly a police strategy during interview.
I think the police have to give the interviewee (suspect) the context of the reason for the interview, but don't have to disclose everything. Therefore you may be told that you will be interviewed about a certain event at a certain time and your whereabouts at the time of the incident etc. What you may not be told about is that the police have your friend's phone with text messages showing you talking about the incident immediately afterwards...
We have to remember that the MET have gone from not investigating historic COVID breaches and being wildly uninterested in the allegations to taking them so seriously that they are concerned about a report hampering their effectiveness. The timing just seems a little..... convenient... for the very people who are presumably being investigated. Lucky old Boris eh?
There is another argument that the report may have uncovered more serious criminal activity that would have criminal punishments beyond fines. I think the chances of the MET pursuing this are about the same as me winning the Tour de France.
Finally, Downing Street must be one of the most heavily policed areas in the whole of the UK. Everyone is checked in and out of the street. There are police officers everywhere. It leads to some uncomfortable questions for the MET. Either they are so woefully incompetent that they didn't spot all these parties happening or they are complicit in allowing them to go ahead whilst fining us commoners if we dared indulge in similar activity. There aren't really any good outcomes for the MET here. Letting the whole scandal slowly die in obscurity would suit them quite nicely as well.
PaulB
Active Member
His lapdog you mean?
