REPORT OF AN INVESTIGATIONBoris has issued the following statement.
BORIS JOHNSON
MAYOR OF LONDON
CHAIRMAN, METROPOLITAN
POLICE AUTHORITY
BY JONATHAN GOOLDEN, BA(LAW) SOLICITOR
24th February 2009
11. Recommendations
11.1 I have concluded that in relation to the police investigation of Mr.
Green, Mr. Johnson did not fail to comply which the Code of Conduct of
the MPA. Specifically, he did not disclose confidential information,
improperly confer and advantage or disadvantage or bring his office or
authority into disrepute in breach of the Code.
I welcome the report of Jonathan Goolden. He concludes that I did not fail to comply with the Code of Conduct of the MPA and GLA and that I did not disclose confidential information, improperly confer and advantage or disadvantage or bring my office or authority into disrepute.
I will now reflect on suggestions for the future on how to deal with extraordinary situations when they arise. I have cooperated fully with Mr Goolden’s investigation and am pleased that it has moved so swiftly to deal with the issues that were raised. I am however disappointed that this investigation has so far cost the taxpayer in excess of £11,000. I am happy to engage in the adoption of a protocol to cover the management of information by senior police officers, senior members and officers of the MPA and I in relation to a critical incident.
So that should be the end of that then. The same, sadly, cannot be said of the Caroline Spelman case. It is a disgrace that the Standards & Privileges Committee did not decide on the case this morning and has delayed a decision for a week. I have been in meetings all day, so haven't caught up with the detail. I hope to blog on it later.
20 comments:
Gordon isn't in the clear. I am astounded at the attitude that £1600 quid is small beer. Surely the scandal is the dishonesty, not the sum involved?
Cool. Ah, he's got loads of enemies who don't think they should have to care about triffling concerns such as burning taxpayers cash.
Oldrightie - what's that? Missed that one.
Iain, Boris is right to highlight the cost, but well done to him. Perhaps he should send a bill to his detractors.
As for Mrs Spellman. She is a Tory! Had she been the Home Secretary or any of the money grabbing Labour Lot she would have been exonerated already.
However, I am with Guido. and believe she should pay the money back and resign from her shadow ministerial position. Cameron has proved rather weak with this!
IF the Tories are to grab the moral high ground they must hold their own internal investigations immediately a complaint is made- and not rely on committees in which the public have no confidence.
The Conservatives need an active INTERNAL AUDIT DEPARTMENT! and employ independent people!
I look forward to the BBC reporting this.
A statement of the blindingly bleedin obvious, innit.
I assume Mr Goolden is recently arrived on our shores, hence his inability to spell or speak in comprehensible English.
"Surely the scandal is the dishonesty, not the sum involved?"
What dishonesty are you alleging?
"You let Jackboots off the hook and we'll leave Spelman alone. Deal or No Deal?"
"What dishonesty are you alleging?"
I think what Mr Oldnightie means is what happened to the 1600 nicker that was Brown's share of the proceeds? That he should have declared to the Fees Office. So it could be deducted from his "expenses". But didn't. Accidentally. Allegedly.
In whose pocket did my money, our money, definitely not, repeat NOT Brown's money, end up?
Any ideas Jimmy?
This post is misleading. Boris has not been cleared of anything yet. He has just released the findings of a report prepared for the GLA standards Committee to the press. The committee itself doesn't meet until next week to actually decide the case either way. It's down to them rather than Goolden to decide whether he has broken the code of conduct.
"Any ideas Jimmy?"
As I understand it, the rent was deducted from his expense claim, so effectively it went into the taxpayer's "pocket". I'm not aware that there has been any suggestion (other than here) that it was anything other than a technical breach.
Now Spelman on the other hand....
The BBC's headline is somewhat different!
The BBC's headline is different because it's accurate. Boris hasn't yet been cleared by the Standards investigation.
"As I understand it, the rent was deducted from his expense claim"
And your evidence for this statement is what, exactly?
If what you say were to be true, (chortle) what was being investigated? The time of day? The fairies at the bottom of the garden? Brown's secret bogey stash?
AdamB,
You are quite right, of course. An analogy might be; the police have found no evidence, the CPS says there are no grounds for prosecution, but there hasn't been a trial. So, of course, how on earth can you be considered innocent.
You're not related to Stalin by any chance?
Stalin? Hey, if you say the Dear Leader is cleared of all charges (after reading the Mayoral edict) then who am I to disagree?
I have concluded that in relation to the police investigation of Mr.
Green, Mr. Johnson did not fail to comply which the Code of Conduct of
the MPA.
Funny. I find no difficulty in understanding that...
"And your evidence for this statement is what, exactly?"
I read the story before commenting on it. I heartily recommend it.
And you accuse the Labour Party of spinning reports for political purposes?
I hate having to say that. It makes me sound like resident dollybot Canvas. I feel dirty now...
Boris is an idiot. He thinks his brand of chuminess and humour allows him to behave like a student politician.
He is too often the story. I sense an element of hubris developing.
Get your head down Boris. Forget image building. Just build a better London.
Labour's European lardy hater of attractive women is after you, Iain.
Why do I all of a sudden have a craving for a bacon sandwich?
Post a Comment