So, the Met steps in.

[Workingman]

Apparently the investigation was launched due to the result of the information provided by the inquiry led by Sue Gray.

It is a bit of a double-edge sword. Individuals will be interviewed and if found guilty fixed penalty notices could be given - that's good. On the other hand it means that Sue Gray's report will be delayed. Unfortunately it now muddies the waters somewhat, it got to the point where it should have been one or the other.

The Met's hand looks to have been forced by recent events, and that is a shame. It could have taken the lead ages ago when the evidence broke and thus obviated the need for the Sue Gray inquiry.

But get this: The PM says he is "willing to be interviewed by police".

Since when did a citizen get the choice to be interviewed in a police investigation? He has the right to remain silent, but that has ramifications and could prove problematic at a later date.

[saundra]

In other words delay delay delay

[TheOstrich]

In other words delay delay delay

Spot on. saundra. Someone in Government deliberately buying time.

Cressida Dick should be made to reveal who has leant on her to step in at this time ......

[cromwell]

Dipstick of the Yard couldn't investigate a sausage on a plate.
However I do think that this is descending into an attempted media coup.
If this is all so scandalous why has it only come out now? Who has been sitting on this information for nearly two years, and why?

[Workingman]

However I do think that this is descending into an attempted media coup.

Nah. This is not the result of some super investigative journalism, this is from people keeping their powder dry till the most opportune moment. Once it got into one section of the media they all had to pile in - the nature of the beast... and politics.

Faced with that No 10 could have read it and handled it better.

[Suff]

If this is all so scandalous why has it only come out now? Who has been sitting on this information for nearly two years, and why?

If this is illegal someone is culpable of withholding evidence of a crime.

In my book they should be punished.

[Workingman]

Burglary or murder are crimes and withholding evidence is a crime in itself.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 in some cases created criminal offences (not crimes) for breaking what were officially referred to as "restrictions" or "rules" and they are not recordable offences. Police were given enforcement powers over rule breaking which could lead to a fixed penalty notice (FPN) but were encouraged to firstly: Engage. Explain. Encourage. Enforce. Initially a FPN did not lead to a criminal record, only when a FPN was not paid could a person be taken to a Magistrate's Court, but even then they could not impose a custodial sentence.

The people who witnessed any rule breaking simply kept it to themselves for use at a later date. They broke no laws in doing so.

If you do not break the rules you cannot be accused of anything.

[Suff]

Yes it seems that you are only withholding evidence if someone actually asks you and you lie.

Gee. So I can witness a murder and turn my back and walk away. So long as nobody asks me if I saw anything, it's legal.

I don't have a lot of time for that.

I'm with you on if you don't break the rules you can't be accused of anything. I'm not with the "hold your evidence until you can do the maximum damage with it".

After all, the whole premise of this is that these parties spread the disease and kill people. Therefore the people who "held" the evidence back were collaborating in spreading a deadly virus by not speaking up at the time and putting a stop to it.

Not that anyone will accuse them of it.

Doesn't change the way I feel about it. If you want the moral high ground you need some morals.

[Workingman]

No, you are withholding evidence of a crime if you withhold it whether asked or not.

Having knowledge of a party that boke the rules or regulations at the time is not withholding evidence of a crime as no "crime" in the criminal law sense had been committed. They were civil offences. It's semantics.

The whole premise of what is happening now is that the elite, those people, lawmakers, who made the rules for the plebs to follow - with fines as punishments if they didn't - saw it as their right to be able to ignore them with impunity.

Many fines were handed out to the plebs who thought the same, some at £10,000 a go.

[Suff]

It's semantics.

Isn't it. So hit them with £20,000 fines and be done with it.

No?

Of course not, they have to lose their jobs and we need a new government. What gets me is everyone is happy that cummings is going to bury Johnson when he, himself, treated the rules much worse at a more dangerous time.

So many corrupting their principles to get a result they want.

Isn't that what the government is accused of doing??