Completely unwarranted intervention by the Home Secretary to delay the publication of the report into Daniel Morgan's death, commissioned by one of her predecessors. If the Home Secretary wanted to make the public think she is trying to hide something, she is going about it in the right way.
Daniel Morgan's family deserve to be told the full, unvarnished truth about his murder and the failure of the police to bring suspects to justice. Even if that truth contains unpalatable details about police corruption, the role of the establishment and the leniency with which newspapers were treated in the 1970s, 1980s and subsequently.
Patel is an absolutely poisonous woman - awful - there is no doubt some redaction taking place as I write - would be good if the full unaltered report was leaked
I had some dealings with her about 15 years ago when she got herself appointed to a governing body I was on. She rarely turned up and it was quite clear to me the only reason she was on it was to add It to her cv.
I know someone who works in the Home Office - tells me she is a terrible person, a bully, and the model if you wanted to build the worst possible politician you can imagine
At some point she will really drop the ball and fall from grace, maybe this case will be the straw that breaks the camels back - here’s hoping !!!!
She already did. Then Boris just put her back to work anyway. But I don't want to go too political on the main forum.
Was just going to say this myself!!
She was sacked in utter disgrace from the Theresa May government for colluding with senior Israeli politicians whilst on 'holiday' in Israel, and then lying to the PM's face about it when she returned, because it turned out that one of them had been the Israeli PM, which she had failed to mention in her initial dressing down.
Awful, awful woman, who has the intellectual capacity of a boiled egg and all of the charm of a mass grave.
One of my favourite TV moments is Ian Hislops spectacular take-down of her on HIGNFY, when she tried to advocate the return of the death penalty.
Only back in favour now, as so many senior Tories quit around the Brexit debacle, and the list of candidates for the Home Office was so thin amongst the 'Boris Backers'.
I wouldn’t trust any of the current “government” further than I could throw them. especially Patel!
There are no redactions. In other words, if the published report contains any, they will all be at the behest of the Home Office, not the report's authors.
Completely unwarranted intervention by the Home Secretary to delay the publication of the report into Daniel Morgan's death, commissioned by one of her predecessors. If the Home Secretary wanted to make the public think she is trying to hide something, she is going about it in the right way.
Daniel Morgan's family deserve to be told the full, unvarnished truth about his murder and the failure of the police to bring suspects to justice. Even if that truth contains unpalatable details about police corruption, the role of the establishment and the leniency with which newspapers were treated in the 1970s, 1980s and subsequently.
Patel is an absolutely poisonous woman - awful - there is no doubt some redaction taking place as I write - would be good if the full unaltered report was leaked
I had some dealings with her about 15 years ago when she got herself appointed to a governing body I was on. She rarely turned up and it was quite clear to me the only reason she was on it was to add It to her cv.
I know someone who works in the Home Office - tells me she is a terrible person, a bully, and the model if you wanted to build the worst possible politician you can imagine
At some point she will really drop the ball and fall from grace, maybe this case will be the straw that breaks the camels back - here’s hoping !!!!
She already did. Then Boris just put her back to work anyway. But I don't want to go too political on the main forum.
Was just going to say this myself!!
She was sacked in utter disgrace from the Theresa May government for colluding with senior Israeli politicians whilst on 'holiday' in Israel, and then lying to the PM's face about it when she returned, because it turned out that one of them had been the Israeli PM, which she had failed to mention in her initial dressing down.
Awful, awful woman, who has the intellectual capacity of a boiled egg and all of the charm of a mass grave.
One of my favourite TV moments is Ian Hislops spectacular take-down of her on HIGNFY, when she tried to advocate the return of the death penalty.
Only back in favour now, as so many senior Tories quit around the Brexit debacle, and the list of candidates for the Home Office was so thin amongst the 'Boris Backers'.
I agree with the sentiments here. But because I agree about her being an intellectual lightweight, I find it extremely doubtful that she knew about the case; that there was even an enquiry panel; or that they were about to publish their report. My assumption, therefore is that for some reason she has been advised by her civil servants to call in the report earlier than the Home Office was due to receive it. Her pronouncement that she needed to read it first is hilarious. She is nothing but a career politician and will lack the legal expertise to understand the Home Office's obligations regarding national security or human rights considerations.
The only other plausible explanation I can think of is that she has been lent on by someone outside Government or the Home Office. We can all come up with some candidates for whom such an approach would likely make good sense.
As ever with such things, those mentioned in the report will have seen and had the opportunity to comment on or challenge what has been written about them. (Which is only right and fair.) It may well be that some of them might not like what has been said. Here is the panel's protocol on disclosure. https://www.danielmorganpanel.independent.gov.uk/procedures/information-disclosure-protocol/ Personally, in the light of the Home Office interference, I find paragraph 19 deeply disturbing.
“As ever with such things, those mentioned in the report will have seen and had the opportunity to comment on or challenge what has been written about them. (Which is only right and fair.) It may well be that some of them might not like what has been said. Here is the panel's protocol on disclosure. https://www.danielmorganpanel.independent.gov.uk/procedures/information-disclosure-protocol/ Personally, in the light of the Home Office interference, I find paragraph 19 deeply disturbing.”
Deeply disturbing indeed, oh for wiki leaks or similar to hold people to account!
The delays in even instigating a credible review and the most recent interference in the eventual publication ensure that no serving officers will ever be held to account. Locally it's been an open secret who did what to whom and with help from who else but "justice" was stymied on day one by the actors at the very heart of the crime.
just read the covering letter it is absolutely damning of the Met and very critical of Priti Patel in delaying the publication. Of note was that the way the enquiry was set up did not allow it full powers to compel people to give evidence and cooperate. Will be interesting to see what fall out there is from this.
And to add to the above the full report is 1256 pages long, I do t expect any detailed considered analysis anytime soon, the word count far exceeds any of Trotsky’s tomes.
Reads very much like the police knew who committed the murder and decided to sabotage the investigation as he was either a copper or an ex-copper. Heads should roll if anyone involved in the investigations remains on the force. Dick should certainly go.
Reads very much like the police knew who committed the murder and decided to sabotage the investigation as he was either a copper or an ex-copper. Heads should roll if anyone involved in the investigations remains on the force. Dick should certainly go.
Reads very much like the police knew who committed the murder and decided to sabotage the investigation as he was either a copper or an ex-copper. Heads should roll if anyone involved in the investigations remains on the force. Dick should certainly go.
Agreed and those guilty of not doing their jobs properly to cover up for others and hinder a murder investigation should at the very least lose their pensions if they can’t face criminal proceedings.
Reads very much like the police knew who committed the murder and decided to sabotage the investigation as he was either a copper or an ex-copper. Heads should roll if anyone involved in the investigations remains on the force. Dick should certainly go.
Reads very much like the police knew who committed the murder and decided to sabotage the investigation as he was either a copper or an ex-copper. Heads should roll if anyone involved in the investigations remains on the force. Dick should certainly go.
Reads very much like the police knew who committed the murder and decided to sabotage the investigation as he was either a copper or an ex-copper. Heads should roll if anyone involved in the investigations remains on the force. Dick should certainly go.
Reminds me of the dodgy Stephen Lawrence enquiry.
Not even remotely similar.
Cover up and corruption in both - a common theme.
My recollection of the Lawrence case is that it was institutional racism, rather than cover up and corruption, that was the issue i.e. the Police took only the basic of investigative action because he was black - I don’t see correlation between the two cases
Reads very much like the police knew who committed the murder and decided to sabotage the investigation as he was either a copper or an ex-copper. Heads should roll if anyone involved in the investigations remains on the force. Dick should certainly go.
Reminds me of the dodgy Stephen Lawrence enquiry.
Not even remotely similar.
Cover up and corruption in both - a common theme.
My recollection of the Lawrence case is that it was institutional racism, rather than cover up and corruption, that was the issue i.e. the Police took only the basic of investigative action because he was black - I don’t see correlation between the two cases
But happy to be proved wrong
There was a three part documentary series on the BBC which exposed cover up, corruption and racism in respect of the investigation.
There were several suggestions that Clifford Norris, father of David Norris who was convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, used his power and influence to thwart the investigation in the early weeks to protect his son. There were allegations that he had several Met officers in his pocket though I don’t think anything was actually proven.
There were several suggestions that Clifford Norris, father of David Norris who was convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, used his power and influence to thwart the investigation in the early weeks to protect his son. There were allegations that he had several Met officers in his pocket though I don’t think anything was actually proven.
Comments
She was sacked in utter disgrace from the Theresa May government for colluding with senior Israeli politicians whilst on 'holiday' in Israel, and then lying to the PM's face about it when she returned, because it turned out that one of them had been the Israeli PM, which she had failed to mention in her initial dressing down.
Awful, awful woman, who has the intellectual capacity of a boiled egg and all of the charm of a mass grave.
One of my favourite TV moments is Ian Hislops spectacular take-down of her on HIGNFY, when she tried to advocate the return of the death penalty.
Only back in favour now, as so many senior Tories quit around the Brexit debacle, and the list of candidates for the Home Office was so thin amongst the 'Boris Backers'.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-57280333
I wouldn’t trust any of the current “government” further than I could throw them. especially Patel!
The only other plausible explanation I can think of is that she has been lent on by someone outside Government or the Home Office. We can all come up with some candidates for whom such an approach would likely make good sense.
As ever with such things, those mentioned in the report will have seen and had the opportunity to comment on or challenge what has been written about them. (Which is only right and fair.) It may well be that some of them might not like what has been said. Here is the panel's protocol on disclosure. https://www.danielmorganpanel.independent.gov.uk/procedures/information-disclosure-protocol/ Personally, in the light of the Home Office interference, I find paragraph 19 deeply disturbing.
Daniel Morgan: Last chance for family in Britain's most-investigated, unsolved murder
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57073302
absolutely scathing. And that it took so long for them to hand over documents - it's still rotten.
I wonder if the report sheds any light on the actual murder case though.
Hoping for a summary soon - 1200 pages is a bit much for me to wade through.
The family deserves it.
Locally it's been an open secret who did what to whom and with help from who else but "justice" was stymied on day one by the actors at the very heart of the crime.
Will be interesting to see what fall out there is from this.
But happy to be proved wrong
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-gangster-dad-stephen-lawrence-12399568
Plenty of cover ups in the Met in the past.