Careless Tories!

[ramAnag]

It was supposed to be about impartiality RA.
Obviously Grey had double agent intentions. Johnson obviously didn't see the red running through her and Starmer did.

They met a long time before what they claimed.
Again I'll say it. Trust them? Not on your life

Of course they ‘met’ a long time ago...she’s an experienced senior Civil Servant and he’s a former DPP...but ‘double agent intentions’? Nonsense. She was employed by Johnson to do one job and, for want of a better word, ‘poached’ by Starmer to do another.
Have to admit...Starmer makes a hash of speaking to Nick whatever his name is.

[SithHappens]

Of course they ‘met’ a long time ago...she’s an experienced senior Civil Servant and he’s a former DPP...but ‘double agent intentions’? Nonsense. She was employed by Johnson to do one job and, for want of a better word, ‘poached’ by Starmer to do another.
Have to admit...Starmer makes a hash of speaking to Nick whatever his name is.

I really doubt there was any bias in her report, Johnson hung himself really. And doubt her job is a reward for her findings. As you say Starmer looks poor in the interview, and this is what annoys me with politicians, not getting a straight answer, because if you don't you assume the worst.

I love LBC to be fair, James O'Brien especially, politicians rarely come out of interviews looking good. The tories just give them so much ammunition.

[ramAnag]

I really doubt there was any bias in her report, Johnson hung himself really. And doubt her job is a reward for her findings. As you say Starmer looks poor in the interview, and this is what annoys me with politicians, not getting a straight answer, because if you don't you assume the worst.

I love LBC to be fair, James O'Brien especially, politicians rarely come out of interviews looking good. The tories just give them so much ammunition.

Agreed...although, tbh, I rarely listen to LBC.

For someone I’d never heard of before the Johnson appointment, Sue Gray seems a very formidable woman. If Johnson didn’t know of any ‘red running through her’ he only has himself to blame (again) as her son is Chair of the Labour Party Irish Society...something he clearly should have been aware of if he’d done his ‘homework’.

[Trickytreesreds]

Agreed...although, tbh, I rarely listen to LBC.

For someone I’d never heard of before the Johnson appointment, Sue Gray seems a very formidable woman. If Johnson didn’t know of any ‘red running through her’ he only has himself to blame (again) as her son is Chair of the Labour Party Irish Society...something he clearly should have been aware of if he’d done his ‘homework’.

I don't doubt that for a minute.
So in all probabilty, was she impartial?
I seriously doubt it, but it's Johnsons own fault.
But it doesn't make Labour look particularly good either, corrupt as **** the lot of them

[SithHappens]

For me it's not that they are corrupt or there was bias that is the concern, its more the fact Starmer is almost a given to be the next PM and he should have known there would be questions asked over the appointment and if he lacks the competency to recognise that and answer them then what does it say about his credentials as a PM.

I think it's known as out of the frying pan....

[ramAnag]

I don't doubt that for a minute.
So in all probabilty, was she impartial?
I seriously doubt it, but it's Johnsons own fault.
But it doesn't make Labour look particularly good either, corrupt as **** the lot of them

Bit of a non sequitur for me, Tricky. You seem to be suggesting that because she’s not a dyed in the wool Tory and possibly has some centre left leanings that she’s incapable of remaining impartial and free from corruption.
Can’t see how that is the case. Where is your, or anyone else’s, evidence? Everyone in all walks of life has their own beliefs and opinions but most professional people can separate their beliefs from the facts they are investigating and Johnson is far from the first MP she’s been brought in to investigate.
Better off concentrating on the results and implications of recent legal and thorough investigations ...eg Johnson’s behaviour, handling of Covid and Rwanda...than moaning about those empowered to conduct such investigation...imo.

[Trickytreesreds]

Bit of a non sequitur for me, Tricky. You seem to be suggesting that because she’s not a dyed in the wool Tory and possibly has some centre left leanings that she’s incapable of remaining impartial and free from corruption.
Can’t see how that is the case. Where is your, or anyone else’s, evidence? Everyone in all walks of life has their own beliefs and opinions but most professional people can separate their beliefs from the facts they are investigating and Johnson is far from the first MP she’s been brought in to investigate.
Better off concentrating on the results and implications of recent legal and thorough investigations ...eg Johnson’s behaviour, handling of Covid and Rwanda...than moaning about those empowered to conduct such investigation...imo.

Sorry, but if you don't think its an issue, then impartiality it definitely isn't.
I'm not defending Johnson here. Brought all the heat on himself. But impartial means exactly that.

Lets take the house speakers- neutral position
Current Lyndsey Hoyle Labour
Does the job magnificently and gives the big stick equally across the house, without bias

His predecesor, John Bercow.Conservative
Neutral my arse
Anti Brexit/Anti Trump/ compulsive liar-

Defects to the Labour party, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Suspended by the Labour party for bullying.

Sorry RA, not that I disagree with Johnsons punishments, but this is one fishy investigation from someone already being tapped up by Labour, who then jumped into their bed right after it.

I trust non of them. Had this been in reverse, where she'd been a Labourite, cleared Johnson , then joined the Tories. You'd be frothing at the mouth.

[MadAmster]

So, what's the proof that Ms Gray didn't purely investigate, find the facts and interpreted them in, quite possibly, the only way they could have been interpreted?

[Geoff Parkstone]

I think the most telling aspect of this issue was Starmer's refusal to answer a simple question repeatedly asked (in the clip)as to when the recruitment began. The innocent can generally always answer simple questions.

So was she impartial - who knows - but her integrity was potentially compromised by conflict of interest - investigating a Tory PM in the knowledge that she would soon be advising the future PM.

This isn't about Johnson's guilt - I don't think that's in doubt - it's about another cover up of something that may have no substance, but just.might. it's about not answering simple questions which would clear her. So what's the logical inference?

A simple "she only came on KS radar after she finished the enquiry" would have dealt with it once and for all. That statement was not forthcoming, leaving all to assume that it isn't true

[ramAnag]

Sorry, but if you don't think its an issue, then impartiality it definitely isn't.
I'm not defending Johnson here. Brought all the heat on himself. But impartial means exactly that.

Lets take the house speakers- neutral position
Current Lyndsey Hoyle Labour
Does the job magnificently and gives the big stick equally across the house, without bias

His predecesor, John Bercow.Conservative
Neutral my arse
Anti Brexit/Anti Trump/ compulsive liar-

Defects to the Labour party, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Suspended by the Labour party for bullying.

Sorry RA, not that I disagree with Johnsons punishments, but this is one fishy investigation from someone already being tapped up by Labour, who then jumped into their bed right after it.

I trust non of them. Had this been in reverse, where she'd been a Labourite, cleared Johnson , then joined the Tories. You'd be frothing at the mouth.

I appreciate you’re not defending Johnson...but you can’t just keep describing an investigation as ‘fishy’ or describing someone as definitely not ‘impartial’ without a shred of evidence.
The former PM is a disreputable liar...been proved time and time again in virtually every job he’s done. That’s not the fault of Sue Gray or Harriet Harman, as Johnson and Co. keep bleating, there is no ‘witch hunt’, he’s just be found out...and that’s the point, imo.