DCJonah Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 The met police are broken. A head teacher killed herself because of an Ofsted report and other schools are blocking ofsted inspectors. Are there any government areas in this country that aren't collapsing or broken? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 27 minutes ago, DCJonah said: The met police are broken. A head teacher killed herself because of an Ofsted report and other schools are blocking ofsted inspectors. Are there any government areas in this country that aren't collapsing or broken? Their gravy train 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted March 21, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted March 21, 2023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Stevo985 Posted March 21, 2023 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted March 21, 2023 19 minutes ago, choffer said: She really is a vile piece of shit 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 The criteria for appointing our Home Secretaries must be terrifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted March 21, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted March 21, 2023 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 It’s hard to believe Sunak is really trying to turn a corner with the Tories when he has people like her in such powerful positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bickster Posted March 21, 2023 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted March 21, 2023 1 hour ago, choffer said: Hold on a minute... there are a few things to raise here 1. The Home Secretary has just potentially jeopardised the trial of a murderer 2. How do 70 odd Labour MPs campaigning prevent the government from deporting someone? Whilst the first point is obviously an amazingly stupid thing to do and for a Home Secretary, even worse. Look at the second point and ask the question, Why did MdeC campaign for this criminal to be kept in the country? And the answer is, she didn't. The campaign that included a number of Celebs as well as MPs was to prevent the deportation flights to Jamaica, it wasn't about this individual at all. WHy did they do this and why were they successful? Because there was a huge chance that they were deporting people with Windrush claims, just because they didn't have documentation. The claim made isn't even remotely honest, the campaign was never about this individual. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted March 21, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted March 21, 2023 44 minutes ago, bickster said: Hold on a minute... there are a few things to raise here 1. The Home Secretary has just potentially jeopardised the trial of a murderer 2. How do 70 odd Labour MPs campaigning prevent the government from deporting someone? Whilst the first point is obviously an amazingly stupid thing to do and for a Home Secretary, even worse. Look at the second point and ask the question, Why did MdeC campaign for this criminal to be kept in the country? And the answer is, she didn't. The campaign that included a number of Celebs as well as MPs was to prevent the deportation flights to Jamaica, it wasn't about this individual at all. WHy did they do this and why were they successful? Because there was a huge chance that they were deporting people with Windrush claims, just because they didn't have documentation. The claim made isn't even remotely honest, the campaign was never about this individual. Can't believe she would lie like that 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 21, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted March 21, 2023 3 hours ago, Dodgyknees said: Their gravy train I take it all back. Any party with dedicated trains for transporting much needed gravy to the people is of course the best. But then again, they want to stop this, according to their latest slogan. Funny lot. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 I love how him and his goons have spent the best part of 2 weeks telling us how biased Sue Gray is yet there's a line in there that says something like "as you can see from the Gray report I did nothing wrong". Which is it, you lying overweight piece of shit? You can't have it both ways, can you? Whenever the report says something nasty about him it's bias and when it vindicates him it's clearly not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 His argument seems to be, I did wrong , I know I did wrong, but nobody told me it was wrong. How do you think it would play out if a bank robber caught red handed, argued in court that he was innocent because nobody told him it was wrong? He’s an absolute charlatan. Totally unfit to be in any position of authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 21, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted March 21, 2023 I've just read his 50 page submission to the Inquiry. If he sticks to the lines within it, he'll get off, unless there's some seriously good questioning and some poor answering. The gist of it (his submission) is that what he knew and believed was that the guidance was followed at all the events he knew* about or asked about. He also claims that the committee is over-reaching its mandate, being tasked with looking at if rules were broken (but not if guidance was not adhered to). *this seems the thing - events for which there is a record of him knowing or being told about are, in his submission, basically 3 events. There were loads of others, and these get no mention. The 3 or so he covers he claims there is evidence that he was advised the guidelines were followed, or argument that they were. It seems (by omission) likely that he deliberately didn't want to "know: about others, or he knew about them and what went on, but there's no paper trail record to do for him. So I reckon he's getting off based on what I've read so far. His lawyer is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 21, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted March 21, 2023 4 minutes ago, meregreen said: His argument seems to be, I did wrong , I know I did wrong, but nobody told me it was wrong. The problem is for him to be "guilty" the committee essentially has to demonstrate that he knew he and others were not following guidance - guidance which is open to a degree of interpretation. The investigation isn't into whether he breached the guidance, it's whether he lied about it when he made his statements. That's hard to prove. The court of public opinion has him bang to rights, but "it's obvious" isn't enough, IMO, to "convict" him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 If I’m in a room with other people, with a drink in my hand and food on the table, while at the same time joking that they must be at the most unsocially distanced gathering in the country. Then go to Parliament and state that all rules were followed. I think I’d stop digging. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 15 minutes ago, blandy said: The problem is for him to be "guilty" the committee essentially has to demonstrate that he knew he and others were not following guidance - guidance which is open to a degree of interpretation. The investigation isn't into whether he breached the guidance, it's whether he lied about it when he made his statements. That's hard to prove. I'm not sure it needs to be quite that onerous - this IfG explainer says that Quote In an interim report published by the Privileges Committee in March 2023, setting out the issues it wishes to raise with Johnson, the committee further stated that it is investigating whether, if a statement made by Johnson to the Commons is found to have been misleading, it was “inadvertent, reckless, or intentional.” This may include examining “how quickly and comprehensively any misleading statement to the House was corrected.” So they've given themselves the additional leeway by saying that if they can't prove that he knew it was wrong, the fact that he should have known is good enough to find against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 29 minutes ago, blandy said: I've just read his 50 page submission to the Inquiry Did you have a sudden urge to have a shower afterwards? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 21, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted March 21, 2023 28 minutes ago, ml1dch said: I'm not sure it needs to be quite that onerous - this IfG explainer says that So they've given themselves the additional leeway by saying that if they can't prove that he knew it was wrong, the fact that he should have known is good enough to find against him. He (or his brief) argue that that part is outside the specific remit of the Inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 21, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted March 21, 2023 29 minutes ago, ml1dch said: they've given themselves That's the bit, specifically - He claims they have no right to do that. Their remit does not extend to them deciding what their scope is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts