Perhaps he deliberately says things that are not true in the hope of getting away with it.
Sue Gray
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Perhaps he deliberately says things that are not true in the hope of getting away with it.
Sponsored Links
What "independent" inquiry do you have in mind?
Is it one ordered by a Conservative politician?
Does it follow any established process?
Who are the members of this inquiry?
Why is the normal Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) report not sufficient?
"Robert Peston reported that Gray suspended cooperation with the Cabinet Office investigation because she found out it was already using information – on dates of her meetings with Starmer, for example – that she had supplied to Acoba via the Cabinet Office.
“She viewed this, understandably, as a breach of process and confidentiality,” he tweeted. “Gray’s views were … relayed to the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, who agreed with her. Which is why it was impossible for Dowden to publish a report [yesterday] on whether she breached the civil service code, in spite of weekend briefings that publication was imminent.”
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,706
- Reaction score
- 2,215
- Country
The issue is that Civil servants must report these meetings, to prevent such allegations. Did she? It would seem the answer was no.
Sue Gray in partygate team during secret talks with Keir Starmer
Civil servant whose report prompted Boris Johnson's downfall was still working for ethics grouping while in discussions with Labour leader
www.telegraph.co.uk
Don't shoot the messenger - I'm reporting the news, not making it.
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Tell me about Priti Patel and the Israeli government
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,706
- Reaction score
- 2,215
- Country
Has she denied it? Perhaps she might have testified of her innocence when given the chance instead of “no comment”.
So far we know that at least one conflict of interest went unreported. That is not the behaviour of a person of the highest integrity
So far we know that at least one conflict of interest went unreported. That is not the behaviour of a person of the highest integrity
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,706
- Reaction score
- 2,215
- Country
You’re the one alleging something is false. It’s for you to prove it. If only naughty Sue had chosen to cooperate and clear her name.
No, you're the one making an allegation.
You have not shown it to be true. It can be dismissed as nonsense.
You have not shown it to be true. It can be dismissed as nonsense.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,706
- Reaction score
- 2,215
- Country
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 9,299
- Reaction score
- 716
- Country
I think that confirms his point?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,706
- Reaction score
- 2,215
- Country
If you say something is false and/or not true, you surely need evidence? @JohnD offers none. So his comments that my statement is false can be [by his own standard] dismissed as nonsense.
Squeaky clean Starmer said himself that Integral Sue would lay out when she started talks with labour to lay everyone's mind at rest. She is after all required to clear all conversations with the opposition, which she clearly hasn't done. We seem to have a reversal of Starmer's commitment given that Sue Gray is refusing to co-operate. When your lawyer tells you to say "no comment", in a police interview it's because they want plod to prove their case. In this case there was a commitment to come clean. Either she states on record or the Labour Party does. I can imagine the cries from the lefties had Bojo and his team opted for "no comment" during Gray's inquiry.
Someone needs to set the record straight or accept people will form their own conclusions, as do magistrates and Jurors when guilty perps go "No comment".
Squeaky clean Starmer said himself that Integral Sue would lay out when she started talks with labour to lay everyone's mind at rest. She is after all required to clear all conversations with the opposition, which she clearly hasn't done. We seem to have a reversal of Starmer's commitment given that Sue Gray is refusing to co-operate. When your lawyer tells you to say "no comment", in a police interview it's because they want plod to prove their case. In this case there was a commitment to come clean. Either she states on record or the Labour Party does. I can imagine the cries from the lefties had Bojo and his team opted for "no comment" during Gray's inquiry.
Someone needs to set the record straight or accept people will form their own conclusions, as do magistrates and Jurors when guilty perps go "No comment".
If you make an allegation, you need evidence.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
This is your allegation.
Where is your evidence?
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
This is your allegation.
Where is your evidence?
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
