See discussion here:
1 Like
However, in the NPCC document (of which I must admit I was not aware, published later than the time I had any involvement):
2.2.3 However, it must be noted, that the business of government or of a local authority does not
cease. Similarly, whilst care should be shown by the force, the importance of policing does not
diminish merely because an election is due to be held. The functions associated with policing still
must be performed.
âFunctions associated with policing - (such as bring people to book perhaps for criminal activity?) must be performed.â
So how does that fit with the Met decision?
Havenât there been âissuesâ in the past with Tommy Robinson and others, for example when they were a candidate seeking election?
Maughamâs view was that they havenât stopped investigating or carrying out the policing bit, merely stopped issuing updates - which they are not obliged to do in any case.
well, thatâs all right then 
I know what you mean, it seems terribly convenient but, at this point, Johnsonâs popularity with the general public is so low that Iâm not sure how much of a difference it would make in practice.
except as to seal the electorateâs resolve that the corrupt Crime Minister and his party is seriously tainted and that all Tory candidates can be tarred with the same brush.
Better perhaps that transparency was maintained, any new fines issued and that the Police could avoid any suggestion - whether justified or not - of being ânobbledâ with undue pressure from the centre being applied to suppress the inevitable?
The Police deserve better imo.
The idea of âpre-election rulesâ is to stop governments, councils etc from issuing last minute policy decisions/ideas to try and influence the election, itâs therefore understandable why the Met felt that they had no choice as publicly announcing more fines now would have no doubt resulted in a change in voting intentions for many people.
This has nothing to do with withholding information from the public on whether those in No 10 broke Covid laws.
It has more to do with the track record of Bo Jo and his thwarted attempt to prorogue Parliament, to get his own way at all costs. That didnât work and neither should this.
It would affect voter intention as would the government announcing ÂŁ100 billion in tax cuts or spending plans two days before the election.
I think you may be referring to purdah @tim17
There are differing rules for GEâs and for locals as set out in the following guidance from The Institute for Government
Itâs the same principle Graham, the rules are there to stop last minute announcements affecting election results.
No one is particularly making a fuss about the Metâs decision other than the Johnson hating devotees.
Iâm not sure that is quite correct tbh.
Opinion generally amongst opposition parties is that Jonson is stained and the longer he stays in power, the more chance they have of wiping out the Tories in any election 
Maybe that is the reason his staunch supporters are now calling for him to go and go now. Steve Baker MP being a case in point. They fear for their seatsâŠ
1 Like
Piece below is an extract from the obituary of David Gardner who worked for the FT for 44 years and retired recently as international affairs editorâŠsays it all!
Gardner used to tell how Boris Johnson, as Telegraph correspondent, had once copied whole paragraphs from his FT story the following day. âI accused him of blatant plagiarism,â Gardner said. The future prime minister was unashamed. âDonât you know we treat the FT as a primary source,â he replied.
I donât see the logic in your position here @tim17 - you seem to be saying that an announcement might influence voters but suppressing an announcement wonât.
Surely withholding bad news just before an election is at least as likely to influence voters as proclaiming good news?
You might argue that publishing details of Johnsonâs wrongdoing is an active intervention, but merely remaining silent isnât - but thatâs not true either when itâs an active decision to cease publishing.
The rules forbid any âgood newsâ so for fairness surely âbad newsâ should also be forbidden?
AGREEâŠTop of Tory MPâs worry list particularly in red wall and similar is that decisions, comments and Johnsonâs antics in No. 10 at present will lose them their seats which is why they will very likely ditch him before the autumn conference.
by which time it may be too lateâŠ
Why not just be honest?
If Johnson resigned tomorrow how would your life change Jane?