This is from the front page of the Telegraph today:
So, there were police officers on duty at the time that parties took place in Number 10.
And their evidence is damning.
What is more, they are quite happy to talk about it.
Except that it, it seems, to their superiors in the Met who refuse to ask them about it.
Once Johnson has gone - as surely he will be - then the clear out of the Met has to start next. Having evidence of crimes and not acting upon it is, surely, a crime when you are a police officer?
Something stinks here and if the police are to recover from this then serious change has to happen. Nothing less will do.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
One aspect of this issue over the Met, which continues to intrigue me is the fact that the current Prime Minister and Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police are both alumni of Balliol College.
It’s purely a fact, but an interesting one!
Dick and Johnson were nearly contemporaries, I think.
As I understand it, after the Dragon and Oxford High, Dick studied Agriculture and Forest Science at Balliol from 1979 to 1982. It was the first cohort of women students there: another was Nicola Horlick: 23 women among around 500 men. Dick joined the police in 1983.
Johnson studied Classics at Balliol from 1983. I wonder when they first met.
Don’t forget Cressida Dick, the person responsible for the assassination by MI5 officers of an innocent Brazilian man and the person who denies there is institutional racism in the Met and the person who refuses to conduct an internal assessment of racism within the Met and the person who felt it was perfectly justifiable for Met officers to assault a group of women protesting against violence to women has recently had her contract extended by two years by that well known humanitarian, Priti Patel. Of course, my cynicism may well be unjustified, as it would otherwise mean that the head of the Metropolitan Police was directly interfering in the course of justice for unrelated political reasons, thereby undermining the rule of law. And who could possibly believe such a thing was happening in ‘the cradle of democracy and home of the Mother of Parliaments’!
I certainly believe it Paul. In my time, failing to investigate a possible crime, was, at the very least, Neglect of Duty.
I have some sympathy for the police – they are in a tough position.
The officers on duty are there to protect the people and premises and although all officers are expected to deal with law breaking if they see it, one can understand individuals reluctance to intervene. After all, trouble makers might get put on duty with Priti Patel at the Home Office (or whatever the modern equivalent of the “Eastern Front” is).
At the senior level I also understand their reluctance to become involved in what is a “political issue” – political issues are best resolved by politicians or at the ballot box.
The problem is that senior officers have been shocked at how brazen Johnson is and there is no “playbook” for this kind of behaviour. They have yet to appreciate that we are in a situation where NOT acting is a political act…. but I can understand why they are moving slowly.
In some ways we are in a good place. The police are “helping with enquiries” and their evidence that will be seen as unimpeachable; Sue Gray can move much more quickly than a Police Enquiry (which would allow Johnson yet more time to “wait for the result of the investigation”; and if Sue Gray is damning and Johnson clings on the Police can still get involved at that stage.
“…….change has to happen.”
It will, a damehood beckons.
Why oh why can’t we have responsible journalism?
“sources have said the officers on duty have ‘nothing to hide’ and their testimony is beyond reproach”
How can this be if the parties were allowed to go ahead? If the police had intelligence before hand members of the public were prevented from attending parties. Why not in these cases?
Why is their testimony treated as “beyond reproach” when their bosses are given no such free pass? Why does their testimony matter when there must be documentary evidence of what the police knew and when, otherwise security could not have been provided properly.
Cabinet ministers, special advisors and senior career civil servants – it looks certain that hundreds of them broke laws for which others have been fined. Hundreds of others must have known yet remained silent. How could the police have investigated so many people in such senior positions … eventually including the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary?
Every government has a duty to uphold the law yet these hundreds didn’t. Journalists must have known but it took them many months to inform the public. Whatever Sue Gray now reports, the reputations of our government, civil service and press are now seriously damaged.
Worse than all of that, many thousands have died – and many more will die – because these people have destroyed trust in health advisors and safety regulations. This is a catastrophe – a terrible legacy.
And I worry about the role of those Cummings-appointed special advisers. Are they there to stay? What are their intentions and their moral principles?
I have a feeling that officers on royal protection and similar duties are expected ‘not to notice’ if the people the are there to protect commit an ‘ahem’ indiscretion. So a royal breaking the speed limit would not be reported by their protection officer. At the same time, as police officers, they must, if asked by an officer of the law, tell the truth.
Might that be the situaiton here?
It’s totally conflicted however looked at
If evidence had emerged of Sadiq Khan holding mayoral parties in this way, I have no doubt whatsoever the Met would have investigated. We are discussing high profile emergency restrictions on basic freedoms that were applied nationwide with a very high level of public acceptance and which resulted in many prosecutions and fines. Here we have a great deal more than suggestive evidence ; we have a great deal more than is necessary to establish a prima facie case. Dick, with or without the connivance of other senior officers, has/have ordered someone not to investigate. This is corruption in my view and it DOES subvert the rule of law.
I’m with Clive on this.
Can you imagine what would have happened if the police who were there (who were protecting the politicians) had challenged the ‘great and the good’ at the party/parties?
I can – the sense of entitlement and power in their reaction to a bobby challenging them would have been a real spectacle and very uncomfortable for the policemen concerned.
What was lacking was a means by which the coppers could report the parties in the name of the law at the time.
And it is that apparent lack of procedure, protocols and due process that really needs to be unpicked with the policeman’s superiors in my view.
I bet the police on duty that night had no idea what they should be doing – I bet there were no ground rules set at all.
Remembering Plebgate, you and Clive are probably right, but if they had not the courage to challenge the powerful at the time, how can they have “nothing to hide” and how is their testimony now “beyond reproach”? And how can an anonymous source say that without challenge from the journalist?
Richard
Have you ever been around absolute power?
Or those born to rule shall we say?
It’s amazing how sub-servient people can become in certain circumstances – how they can genuflect in the presence of perceived power – or, if we are talking about the Tories – nasty posh oiks who can have you removed if you step out of line or just to be looked down on you generally.
How many of the cops do you think went to public schools as opposed to those hanging around No.10 etc?
You might be surprised just how those sorts of relationships can be driven by fear as well. Maybe that is what is driving these further revelations. That the Tories protectors actually disliked their charges?
But also familiarity and proximity – the cops on guard there might have become in a way part of the debauched cultural bubble where rules for normal people just did not apply.
It is claimed that a fish rots from the head down – a metaphore for corruption etc at the top. Sadly, as this article shows (see below) , the Met now, as in the 1960s , 70s, 80s, 90,s etc etc is rotten, racist and corrupt from the very top (see current scandal) through to the very bottom. Examples of this reality run into the hundreds. Met = uniformed corrupt scum.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/24/met-apologises-to-academic-for-sexist-derogatory-language
Yes I can see how stripping a woman naked because she did not give her name to the plods was, at the time a “proportinate response”. NB: no sanction on the coppers.
As for the plods on duty at “No 10 Parties R Us Street” they did their duty & kept their traps shut (‘evenin all, ‘ello, ello is this a party I see – is this a £50 note I see etc etc). Of course they could have contacted the Indy or indeed the Guardian – I’m sure if they had we would have heard something. Or would we? The press is nothing if not incestuous & I’d hazard a guess that much of this (the parties) has been known for some time. Thus, why now? Has Mendacious Fat in the view of the 4th estate now passed his “sell-by-date”?
Folks we are being played.
This is reminiscent of the time that the police and prosecutors did virtually nothing about the Murdoch phone-hacking crimes for ages. It wasn’t until the Milly Dowler example hit the front pages that they did anything much about it.
Too often it appears that some people in the UK have an unofficial immunity to prosecution.
Wonderful. The Met is now going to incestigate the Downing Street parties after receiving information from Sue Gray. WONDERFUL
Except, of course, the Gray report cannot now be punlished until the Met investigation is complete. So all those Tories saying we cannot prejudge now have an excuse to kick the can down the road until after the May elections and after the fuel and NI increases, so Johnson’s successor can blame him for those failures.
But, she has found evidence that the PM needs to be criminally investigated…..
Oh hang on, here we go….
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/25/met-police-investigating-downing-street-parties-cressida-dick-says
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60123850