- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 60,074
- Reaction score
- -46,014
Seems a few Tories thought this was actually real and started to panic today
If only, as they say, there is nothing more dangerous than apathy.We need to riot, like the poll tax riots.
The only way it would be prejudicial is if there is a crime in the report which would ultimately be tried criminally in front of a jury.Sue Gray’s report is supposed to be a factual account. This isn’t a murder trial. There isn’t a judge and jury. Publishing the facts wouldn’t prejudice the outcome of the Met’s investigation? Would it? I don't understand? Genuinely, can someone more learned explain?
Sue Gray’s report is supposed to be a factual account. This isn’t a murder trial. There isn’t a judge and jury. Publishing the facts wouldn’t prejudice the outcome of the Met’s investigation? Would it? I don't understand? Genuinely, can someone more learned explain?
I'm just trying to understand if their excuse actually stacks up.The only way it would be prejudicial is if there is a crime in the report which would ultimately be tried criminally in front of a jury.
I think you are looking too deeply for something which isn't there. The reason is in plain sight
From what I gather the Met would be looking at the possibility of fixed penalty notices, so I can't see what would be prejudicial if the (looking like) 50 days of Gray report is published.The only way it would be prejudicial is if there is a crime in the report which would ultimately be tried criminally in front of a jury.
I think you are looking too deeply for something which isn't there. The reason is in plain sight
Seems a few Tories thought this was actually real and started to panic today