Sue Gray

[carmanmemoranda]

She is accused by others of briefing the Times.. I provided you the link to that accusation. You've rejected it. The PR machines are running at full throttle, its obvious to any sentient being.

Do you have any, I repeat any, direct link to this press release, not a media comment?

It wasn't a fabrication was it ?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Was he conducting a quasi-judicial inquiry, tasked with the utmost impartiality and subject to well defined rules of engagement?

I'd have thought the bigger issue, would be he may have been at risk of poisoning/assassination.

Unusual thought process.

Surely corruption would be the more likely outcome

 

[JonathanM]

I don't know how helpful the analogies are with criminal court proceedings. We have no context about what is normal procedure in these parliamentary inquiries. I think it is unlikely that Harriett Harman would go around joking that she "just speaks to Sue" if she was doing anything that was out of the ordinary.

I know there are several breaches alleged. But very much in the spirit of the man himself, many Johnson supporters are trying to conflate all three. I am just trying to be a bit forensic and tease them apart and see what if anything any of this amounts to.

Personally, I don't believe Sue Gray was a Labour sleeper agent who used her inquiry to bring down the Tories most potent electoral asset, which is the message diehard Johnsonians are pushing. Her inquiry was completed in January 2022. Is anyone even alleging she was in discussions with Labour at that time.

I have not heard or read anything to indicate that the contacts with Harriett Harman were anything other than the standard way these things are carried out.

That leaves the issue of the job, which to me is the main issue. I thought you'd said pretty much the same yesterday. There are several aspects and we are still in the dark about most of it. Should she be allowed to take the job. Her allies say she's not been involved with sensitive information for several years. I don't know what the head of ethics actually does but it doesn't sound very juicy. It may be that she hasn't been privy to any information that should stop her starting the job. The other question, and probably the most important of all, is whether she did anything wrong with the way she got the job. That's the bit I'm really interested in.

I think we need a different government and it sounds like she would be the perfect person to help them hit the ground running. I think that's the main reason that mainstream Tories (not the Johnson lot) are so opposed to her getting the job.

 

[noseall]

(not the Johnson lot) are so opposed to her getting the job.

MBK is a huge fan of serial liar, Parliamentary rule breaker, Johnson. He's desperate to say anything that'll make Boris's latest set of traitorous rule breaches, magically disappear.
Sad old Tories.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

MBK is a huge fan of serial liar, Parliamentary rule breaker, Johnson. He's desperate to say anything that'll make Boris's latest set of traitorous rule breaches, magically disappear.
Sad old Tories.

And failing badly.

 

[JohnD]

I think I've been clear....

No, you haven't.

Vague unsubstantiated mud-slinging is what you've been up to.

Where's this "press release" of yours?

 

[JohnD]

I think I've been clear

What month do you claim these unauthorised chit-chats took place?

You have alleged it was during the investigation.

What do you claim these chit-chats included?

 

[motorbiking]

1. I don't know how helpful the analogies are with criminal court proceedings. We have no context about what is normal procedure in these parliamentary inquiries. I think it is unlikely that Harriett Harman would go around joking that she "just speaks to Sue" if she was doing anything that was out of the ordinary.

I know there are several breaches alleged. But very much in the spirit of the man himself, many Johnson supporters are trying to conflate all three. I am just trying to be a bit forensic and tease them apart and see what if anything any of this amounts to.

2. Personally, I don't believe Sue Gray was a Labour sleeper agent who used her inquiry to bring down the Tories most potent electoral asset, which is the message diehard Johnsonians are pushing. Her inquiry was completed in January 2022. Is anyone even alleging she was in discussions with Labour at that time.

I have not heard or read anything to indicate that the contacts with Harriett Harman were anything other than the standard way these things are carried out.

3. That leaves the issue of the job, which to me is the main issue. I thought you'd said pretty much the same yesterday. There are several aspects and we are still in the dark about most of it. Should she be allowed to take the job. Her allies say she's not been involved with sensitive information for several years. I don't know what the head of ethics actually does but it doesn't sound very juicy. It may be that she hasn't been privy to any information that should stop her starting the job. The other question, and probably the most important of all, is whether she did anything wrong with the way she got the job. That's the bit I'm really interested in.

I think we need a different government and it sounds like she would be the perfect person to help them hit the ground running. I think that's the main reason that mainstream Tories (not the Johnson lot) are so opposed to her getting the job.

Numbered as I can't be ar*sed to separate them
1. They are Quasi-Judicial processes. Similar perhaps to employee disciplinary processes. Things have to be transparent, fair and impartial. Nobody should be having chit chats about what was really meant by the report. Comments about the leniency of the Police fine etc, do not aid impartial decisions about penalties and sanctions. if you found yourself in a fact finding interview and the report was mild, but there was an informal discussion about what was not said for example, you would rightly cry unfair.

2 I don't either, but it's probably not now going to be seen as impartial given the job offer. You don't accept a job from the Labour Party unless you are passionate about the cause. It would be unlikely that JohnD would be offered or could accept CoS for Sunak. Sue clearly is and was a Labour person as is JohnD.

3. As previously said, nobody can stop her. I suspect though Sir K, didn't quite expect the problem she has caused even before she starts working. Perhaps he smelt the juicy prize and didn't think about the consequences to both their reputations. She almost certainly knows where the bodies are buried having worked as a senior civil servant for a very long time. As Ackland-Hood said [paraphrase] it's not possible for all this to have happened without a significant prior contact, which was not reported = Rules broken.

The Civil Service code

www.gov.uk

On the bases of her fellow civil servants commentary and shock, its fairly clear that Integral Sue did break the code. Naughty Sue.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Numbered as I can't be ar*sed to separate them
1. They are Quasi-Judicial processes. Similar perhaps to employee disciplinary processes. Things have to be transparent, fair and impartial. Nobody should be having chit chats about what was really meant by the report. Comments about the leniency of the Police fine etc, do not aid impartial decisions about penalties and sanctions. if you found yourself in a fact finding interview and the report was mild, but there was an informal discussion about what was not said for example, you would rightly cry unfair.

2 I don't either, but it's probably not now going to be seen as impartial given the job offer. You don't accept a job from the Labour Party unless you are passionate about the cause. It would be unlikely that JohnD would be offered or could accept CoS for Sunak. Sue clearly is and was a Labour person as is JohnD.

3. As previously said, nobody can stop her. I suspect though Sir K, didn't quite expect the problem she has caused even before she starts working. Perhaps he smelt the juicy prize and didn't think about the consequences to both their reputations. She almost certainly knows where the bodies are buried having worked as a senior civil servant for a very long time. As Ackland-Hood said [paraphrase] it's not possible for all this to have happened without a significant prior contact, which was not reported = Rules broken.

The Civil Service code

www.gov.uk

On the bases of her fellow civil servants commentary and shock, its fairly clear that Integral Sue did break the code. Naughty Sue.

More mud.

Any news on that press release ? It seems to be escaping your memory

 

[motorbiking]

So you think this is all made up then? Every single point is covered and it's not just in the telegraph. Has anyone in Labour denied any of this and provided evidence? No.

Sue Gray refused to cooperate with inquiry into Labour role, say ministers

Sue Gray has refused to co-operate with a Whitehall inquiry into whether she broke any rules by agreeing to take a job with Sir Keir Starmer, Oliver Dowden said on Tuesday.

www.telegraph.co.uk

You can keep asking for info as much as you like - I've shown you where it was claimed, you have rejected it. I can't help you, if you reject the things you ask for.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

So you think this is all made up then? Every single point is covered and it's not just in the telegraph. Has anyone in Labour denied any of this and provided evidence? No.

Sue Gray refused to cooperate with inquiry into Labour role, say ministers

Sue Gray has refused to co-operate with a Whitehall inquiry into whether she broke any rules by agreeing to take a job with Sir Keir Starmer, Oliver Dowden said on Tuesday.

www.telegraph.co.uk

You can keep asking for info as much as you like - I've shown you where it was claimed, you have rejected it. I can't help you, if you reject the things you ask for.

as I've said before, I will wait for the official result. I don't agree with trial by media, it is usually biased.

you clearly claimed a press release and have avoided showing or linking to it consistently. You just keep showing media comnents, that is not what a press release is, and you know that. I have googled it and can't find anything that ties in with your loose allegations. What am I left to think, other than....

you are just throwing mud.

 

[transam]

I recall some type of press comment over the caper mentioned on the radio a while back

Let’s face it the entire caper of sue grey getting a job with Labour is bound to come across as a bit iffy to say the least

Common sense would dictate or should dictate (?) that questions and eye brows would be raised over the affair

 

[noseall]

I recall some type of press comment over the caper mentioned on the radio a while back

Let’s face it the entire caper of sue grey getting a job with Labour is bound to come across as a bit iffy to say the least

Common sense would dictate or should dictate (?) that questions and eye brows would be raised over the affair

None of the caper actually detracts from the fact that Boris is a lying, traitorous oaf that broke his own rules and lied to Parliament though. She might even tone down the report, its findings and conclusions and say just hang him.

 

[SirGalahad]

You can keep asking for info as much as you like - I've shown you where it was claimed, you have rejected it. I can't help you, if you reject the things you ask for.

It worked fore Brexiteers, when did facts ever bother them?

Don't be upset now, what's good for the goose...

 

[transam]

None of the caper actually detracts from the fact that Boris is a lying, traitorous oaf that broke his own rules and lied to Parliament though. She might even tone down the report, its findings and conclusions and say just hang him.

Dunno what you are on about noseall

What has Johnson got to do with her going to work for labour ??