What a surprise the police watchdog have declared that they are not required to investigate the incident of the police outside of number 10 turning a blind eye to the illegal parties that went on till after midnight with food and drinks.
And the usual culprit for refusing to do any investigation from the police is the one and only, the Tory tame police excuser “Met Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick” !!!!!
> The police watchdog has rejected a complaint over how the Metropolitan Police handled allegations of a Christmas party in No 10 last year.
> The force referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct after a complaint from Green Party peer Baroness Jones.
> She argued officers outside No 10 “must have known” if an unlawful gathering had taken place during lockdown.
> But the IOPC released a statement, saying the referral was “invalid”.
> A source has told the BBC there had been food and drink and that the gathering had gone on past midnight.
> The Met Police said it was not beginning an investigation into the allegations, “based on the absence of evidence and in line with our policy not to investigate retrospective breaches of such regulations”.
> The statement added that the Met had spoken to the government about its own inquiry and that “if any evidence is found as a result of that investigation, it will be passed to the Met for further consideration”.
> But Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb said police working outside No 10 controlled “all access to and from Downing Street”.
> “Put very simply, if there was an unlawful gathering taking place at No 10 Downing Street, then the police must have known and were highly likely to have played an active part in organising or facilitating the illegal gathering,” she added.
> “I believe there is a case to answer for the police aiding and abetting a criminal offence or deliberately failing to enforce the law in favour of government politicians and their staff.”
> She also argued that Met Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick’s decision not to investigate the reported party represented “a potential cover-up”.
> But the watchdog has dismissed her complaint.
> In a statement, they said a “valid complaint” could only be made when “an individual, or someone acting on their behalf, has been adversely affected by the alleged conduct or its effects”.
> And as there was no evidence Baroness Jones had been nearby when the event took place, “we have decided it is invalid”.
> “There was nothing within the referral to indicate the complainant was physically present or nearby when officers stationed at Downing Street allegedly failed to enforce Covid rules. Nor is there a suggestion that they were physically present or sufficiently nearby when the effects of the officers’ actions occurred.”
“So we know that there were probably illegal activities and that our officers were involved but because this person wasn’t nearby when this happened we refuse to investigate”
> A separate complaint by Jones, that the Met Commissioner, Cressida Dick, refused to investigate the allegations, has been referred to the Mayor’s Office for Policing And Crime (Mopac), which sets the direction and budget for the force.
> Mopac has said it is assessing the complaint to decide if further action is required. The event is also among those being investigated by the senior civil servant Sue Gray.
Utter self serving BS as ever.
“We the police cannot hold our paymasters / owners to account and will weasel our way out of these illegal activities in any way we can”
There probably is some legit reason (probably some weird loophole buried within the legislation) why the police can’t investigate this, but the optics are absolutely _terrible._
Rejected for being invalid, as the complainant wasn’t present, which is standard.
While there might be some legal loophole they are using to not have to investigate, it is in such bad optics not to. Can they not tell that the public are outraged over this and that it will hugely affect trust in the Met?
Isn’t it fair to say everyone was “affected by” these parties, as compliance with restrictions will drop causing a public health problem?
Seems like the issue is solely that the Baroness isn’t ‘personally affected’?
Also, even if this is ‘by the book’, it is optically fucking awful, and just works to reinforce the idea the Met serve power not the people.
They were more than happy to force entry into people’s homes for suspected gatherings, and liberally hand put fines for much smaller gatherings up and down the country though.
Once again, it proves that if you’re a toffee nosed Tory and you know the right people you can get away with anything.
What specifically requires someone to be physically present?
You could easily claim (justifiably) to have been significantly affected mentally, the fact that such a breech of public trust, confidence and illegal actions had caused significant mental health issues.
And that the refusal of the police to investigate had significantly worsened that mental state.
Might be worth a shot
“We’ve investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing ”
A depressingly obvious outcome unfortunately
The legal/justice system in this country is fucking laughably broken.
All Starmer has to do is promise an independent inquiry into the Johnson government’s handling of Brexit and COVID-19 and to prosecute any government officials found to be abusing their power, and it’ll be a guaranteed slam-dunk LAB+10 from all the pollsters.
Dude’s the former head of the CPS and is all about law & order. If anybody could stamp out government corruption it’s him.
He doesn’t even need policies at this point. He just needs to promise retribution for all the Tories have done to this country.
Firstly, the police covering up for and refusing to investigate the government is corruption and affects every single person in the country.
Even if you focus on the event itself, they were increasing the risk of infection to Londoners and put lives at risk.
This is just the IOPC covering for the Met, like IPCC before them did [they only rebranded because their credibility was shot but it’s mostly the same people]
The right decision. The police applied the appropriate policy, the same that has applied over the pandemic to all such investigations. Just because this policy is inconvenient to the vocal opposition who are on a hunt for any wrong doings, is inconsequential. The decision has now largely been ratified by an independent authority (albeit we are awaiting the result of part 2).
14 comments
[removed]
What a surprise the police watchdog have declared that they are not required to investigate the incident of the police outside of number 10 turning a blind eye to the illegal parties that went on till after midnight with food and drinks.
And the usual culprit for refusing to do any investigation from the police is the one and only, the Tory tame police excuser “Met Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick” !!!!!
> The police watchdog has rejected a complaint over how the Metropolitan Police handled allegations of a Christmas party in No 10 last year.
> The force referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct after a complaint from Green Party peer Baroness Jones.
> She argued officers outside No 10 “must have known” if an unlawful gathering had taken place during lockdown.
> But the IOPC released a statement, saying the referral was “invalid”.
> A source has told the BBC there had been food and drink and that the gathering had gone on past midnight.
> The Met Police said it was not beginning an investigation into the allegations, “based on the absence of evidence and in line with our policy not to investigate retrospective breaches of such regulations”.
> The statement added that the Met had spoken to the government about its own inquiry and that “if any evidence is found as a result of that investigation, it will be passed to the Met for further consideration”.
> But Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb said police working outside No 10 controlled “all access to and from Downing Street”.
> “Put very simply, if there was an unlawful gathering taking place at No 10 Downing Street, then the police must have known and were highly likely to have played an active part in organising or facilitating the illegal gathering,” she added.
> “I believe there is a case to answer for the police aiding and abetting a criminal offence or deliberately failing to enforce the law in favour of government politicians and their staff.”
> She also argued that Met Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick’s decision not to investigate the reported party represented “a potential cover-up”.
> But the watchdog has dismissed her complaint.
> In a statement, they said a “valid complaint” could only be made when “an individual, or someone acting on their behalf, has been adversely affected by the alleged conduct or its effects”.
> And as there was no evidence Baroness Jones had been nearby when the event took place, “we have decided it is invalid”.
And from the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/22/police-watchdog-dismisses-complaint-against-no-10-officers-over-alleged-party
> “There was nothing within the referral to indicate the complainant was physically present or nearby when officers stationed at Downing Street allegedly failed to enforce Covid rules. Nor is there a suggestion that they were physically present or sufficiently nearby when the effects of the officers’ actions occurred.”
“So we know that there were probably illegal activities and that our officers were involved but because this person wasn’t nearby when this happened we refuse to investigate”
> A separate complaint by Jones, that the Met Commissioner, Cressida Dick, refused to investigate the allegations, has been referred to the Mayor’s Office for Policing And Crime (Mopac), which sets the direction and budget for the force.
> Mopac has said it is assessing the complaint to decide if further action is required. The event is also among those being investigated by the senior civil servant Sue Gray.
Utter self serving BS as ever.
“We the police cannot hold our paymasters / owners to account and will weasel our way out of these illegal activities in any way we can”
There probably is some legit reason (probably some weird loophole buried within the legislation) why the police can’t investigate this, but the optics are absolutely _terrible._
Rejected for being invalid, as the complainant wasn’t present, which is standard.
While there might be some legal loophole they are using to not have to investigate, it is in such bad optics not to. Can they not tell that the public are outraged over this and that it will hugely affect trust in the Met?
Isn’t it fair to say everyone was “affected by” these parties, as compliance with restrictions will drop causing a public health problem?
Seems like the issue is solely that the Baroness isn’t ‘personally affected’?
Also, even if this is ‘by the book’, it is optically fucking awful, and just works to reinforce the idea the Met serve power not the people.
They were more than happy to force entry into people’s homes for suspected gatherings, and liberally hand put fines for much smaller gatherings up and down the country though.
Once again, it proves that if you’re a toffee nosed Tory and you know the right people you can get away with anything.
What specifically requires someone to be physically present?
You could easily claim (justifiably) to have been significantly affected mentally, the fact that such a breech of public trust, confidence and illegal actions had caused significant mental health issues.
And that the refusal of the police to investigate had significantly worsened that mental state.
Might be worth a shot
“We’ve investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing ”
A depressingly obvious outcome unfortunately
The legal/justice system in this country is fucking laughably broken.
All Starmer has to do is promise an independent inquiry into the Johnson government’s handling of Brexit and COVID-19 and to prosecute any government officials found to be abusing their power, and it’ll be a guaranteed slam-dunk LAB+10 from all the pollsters.
Dude’s the former head of the CPS and is all about law & order. If anybody could stamp out government corruption it’s him.
He doesn’t even need policies at this point. He just needs to promise retribution for all the Tories have done to this country.
[Authority undermined](https://i.imgur.com/EhsKPdf.png)
Firstly, the police covering up for and refusing to investigate the government is corruption and affects every single person in the country.
Even if you focus on the event itself, they were increasing the risk of infection to Londoners and put lives at risk.
This is just the IOPC covering for the Met, like IPCC before them did [they only rebranded because their credibility was shot but it’s mostly the same people]
The right decision. The police applied the appropriate policy, the same that has applied over the pandemic to all such investigations. Just because this policy is inconvenient to the vocal opposition who are on a hunt for any wrong doings, is inconsequential. The decision has now largely been ratified by an independent authority (albeit we are awaiting the result of part 2).