From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 28 Jan 22 - 07:06 PM

The whole point here is that, investigations apart, we already know the facts. We know that an honestly-published report (a phrase I use advisedly, and nothing to do with Sue Gray) would finish him. The only thing that is "in his interests" is delay, delay, delay. That's what he and Cressida Dick (who owes him one) are up to. We are living in a corrupt country. It's a tragedy.

I've asked before what information you have which is not available to the rest of us. You continue not to say, but to make unsubstantiated pronouncements.

Saying:
I'll say what the Beeb and the papers daren't say for fear of their being sued. A couple of days ago, the Met said that they had no issue with the publication of the report. Today, yes they suddenly do have an issue. The most damaging accusations, and presumably the most damaging findings, are to be kept from us. Maybe for weeks if the Met gets its way. How ideal for Johnson. Let it all fade from the headlines and the public perception. Then, down the line, we get told that there isn't enough evidence to secure convictions. Bingo. This all happened today when the report was on the cusp of being delivered. It's a stitch-up. Cressida Dick is a big mate of Johnson's, and almost certainly wouldn't be in post but for him. You can bet your ass that they've been in touch during the last 48 hours to fix a whitewash. There, I've said it, and I'm not scared of being sued. Because it's all just my opinion, guv. ;-) includes a lot of 'statements' which appear to be of 'fact'. Adding a small disclaimer, at the end, that it is just your opinion, does not mollify the tone of the earlier claims.

Your previous claim (with no attached caveat) was:
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 23 Jan 22 - 07:50 PM

The gatherings were illegal, Nigel.

I asked how you could know something which others still believed they needed to investigate to see whether it was true, and answer came there none!