No10 staff allowed to view partygate notes on them before responding to police

13 comments
  1. > She goes on to say that “in light of particular circumstances surrounding this set of events I have, as an exceptional measure, decided that individuals may be provided with limited access to the notes”.

    C’mon Sue, there are no exceptional measures anymore. This is the status quo.

  2. This is a pretty key part of our judicial process – you’re entitled to know what you’re being accused of, and some evidence disclosed. This is not surprising.

  3. > She goes on to say that “in light of particular circumstances surrounding this set of events I have, as an exceptional measure, decided that individuals may be provided with limited access to the notes”.

    Those circumstances being that without the notes they might lie and then would be caught lying? I don’t get it, what possible benefit to the general public is there in letting these people carefully craft their responses to avoid incriminating themselves?

    Edit: I suppose, maybe if they see the notes and are aware there is plenty of evidence they were there, they may be more likely to spill the beans about who else was there, who arranged the party, etc.

  4. This country is an absolute joke!

    Police: We will be investigating you now.

    Gov: Oh no, can you take it easy on us?

    Police: Of course, here are the questions which we will ask. Check them against the SG report and if you lie just make sure it is not contradicting the findings there. Additionally we won’t release any photos from the party-gate as the public would eat you alive seeing how much piss taking you did…

    Gov: Thanks, just make up some bullshit reasons to justify that approach as most of the UK public is too thick to understand that we are fucking them over every day

  5. I don’t really see much benefit for these staff to fill in this questionnaire anyway. In their situation I’d definitely be doing whatever my solicitor suggested.

  6. I thought the justification for withholding the full Sue Grey report was precisely that this shouldn’t happen? The whole thing stinks of corruption and cover-up.

  7. I mean in January when the Met asked for Sue Gray’s evidence to be held back until the investigation was complete every commentator was lining up to say “I don’t see why! Corruption! Publish the report in full!”

    Now it *isn’t* being held back, everyone suddenly understands evidential contamination and is appalled by it?

    This is exhausting.

Leave a Reply