Forum Topic

Yes, in full.The police have no jurisdiction or authority to restrict publication of the report, or to say what is in it.And as many lawyers have pointed out, there are no grounds to say that publication may prejudice the police enquiries or any prosecution.  What information could the potential defendants learn that they do not already know? (Basically, whether or not they were at any of the numerous parties (which Johnson obviously already knows, so the Gray internal inquiry (not "independent investigation") was always a farce  in the first place).  And there is no question of prejudicing a future jury, because there will not be one - the punish is fixed penalty fines handed out by the police.This is why the reasons given by the police to restrict the report made no sense. And when someone gives a reason for something that makes no sense, there is usually another (undisclosed) reason.In most cases the fine for breach of the regulations is a piddly £100 fixed penalty (reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days). For large gatherings (fifteen or more people indoors) its £800 (reduced to £400 if paid within 14 days), but doubles with each subsequent office up to a maximum of £6,400 - so for the 15 gatherings so far made public the total fines could be over £82,000.For large gatherings of more than 30 peole the fine is £10,000.But none of this reflects the bigger crimes, i.e. the contempt that Johnson has shown to the British people, and his repreated lies to Parliament (and the media, and so the public) about what went on, and more particularly, what he must know went on.  The punishment for those crimes should be the sack.

T P Howell ● 1698d

I'm very disappointed to see that the police statement suggests that no charges beyond those that would require a Fixed Penalty Notice are being considered. However, there is confirmation that they are investigating a party at the number 10 flat. The other events such as the May garden party and the November birthday party have given Johnson an opportunity to weasel out of things by claiming he thought they were work events or that he was only there for ten minutes and confusing the issue for some. The flat party is a different matter.It was an event that must have been organised by either him or his wife in full knowledge that it was in breach of the law. There is no wriggle room with this one and he can't use an argument based on semantics to try and get out of it. He has lied about it in parliament. I know he has lied before but this is a lie for which there isn't even the weakest defence against. The Met probably put this event to the top of the pile and was almost definitely alerted by Sue Gray to the importance of it. All the people at this party will need to be interviewed and as soon as Johnson gets the FPN relating to it he will have to resign. It must be highly unlikely that the allegation of the flat party is untrue because the Met possesses a huge amount of evidence including that of the Prime Minister's security detail and CCTV from within the building.People who are criticising the Met are misunderstanding what is happening here in my view. That the police are choosing to take their time over this - probably on the advice of the CPS - shows that they realise that this is going to end in the resignation of a Prime Minister and they want the investigation to be above reproach. They need to take their time to ensure they get it right and we should let them.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1696d