Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Obstruction is a USA thing isn’t it? We just have perverting the course of justice which as you say is a higher standard.
|
Obstruction of justice is a UK thing too, it is covered in UK law:
From Wiki:
Quote:
Doing an act tending and intending to pervert the course of public justice[3] is an offence under the common law of England and Wales.
Perverting the course of justice can be any of three acts:
- Fabricating or disposing of evidence
- Intimidating or threatening a witness or juror
- Intimidating or threatening a judge
- Also criminal are:
conspiring with another to pervert the course of justice, and
intending to pervert the course of justice
This offence, and the subject matter of the related forms of criminal conspiracy, have been referred to as:
- Perverting the course of justice
- Interfering with the administration of justice
- Obstructing the administration of justice
- Obstructing the course of justice
- Defeating the due course of justice
- Defeating the ends of justice
- Effecting a public mischief
|
Perverting the course of justice carries maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
Firstly, it should go without saying that if Starmer broke the rules he voted in favour of and called others out on, he should resign. He may not take Johnson down with him as Starmer seems to being held to a higher level of accountability than Johnson (may be due to his previous role as Head of DPP?) but I'm sure the Sue Gray report will bury Johnson's leadership.
As an aside, some of the figures that seem to be banded around as gospel - 30 people and a takeaway bill of £200 for curry and beer are contradictory - you would be looking at about £15 per head for that minimum which equates to about 13 people.
In terms of it being a party, we seem to have the word of one person against the word of many people. It's a risk for that one person to stick their neck out with a jail term attached for giving false information so the investigation will be interesting if that witness does follow through and speak to the police. If they don't then I can't see their investigation result changing.
I do think people have got excited about some details eg initially advising Rayner not being there. This to me looks like poor administration as the presence of the Deputy Leader would actually be stronger evidence that it was a work event. The question that surely should be asked is "Does it materially affect the evidence?".
I don't see this error as falling under the headings of "perverting the course of justice" or "giving false information to the police". Incidentally, Starmer will be very familiar with these laws as the consent of the the Director of Public Prosecutions is required before someone can be prosecuted.
The political winners in this situation, whether or not Johnson or Starmer remain in power, are probably the Liberal Democrats.
|
More bullshit. You’re struggling to see the wood for the trees take your venomous tinted glasses for Johnson off, FFS.
Labour have LIED, several times here, it’s not excitement it’s the hypocrisy.
Rayner not being there, then she was, is a blatant lie. also a lie is Starmer saying the curry was a spare of the moment, spontaneous decision, yet the Op Note/memo says Curry was planned. Witness testimony of someone there who says Foy and others are not working at all, just socialising. Video footage of zero social distancing, no face masks (again memo says face masks must be worn at all times)
Starmer had lied that food wasn’t available anywhere else, which is simply not true, when the hotel Starmer was at, was even serving food.
But the most blatant breach was eating and sharing food with people not household members with.