However, stories are already coming out that indicate Gray's report may not be the last word on the subject.
The Sunday Times has seen text messages which appear to show there was a second party in the flat above Downing Street on 19 June 2020 after the 'gathering' for which Johnson, Case and Sunak were all fined. On the day, an aide told Carrie, the prime minister’s wife that her husband was on his way up to the flat. She replied that she was already there and suggested that she was with an unspecified number of male friends.
Gray's team was told in January this year by the aide that these texts existed. The aide didn't want to forward the messages, but they were prepared to come into the Cabinet Office to show the messages to inquiry officials in person. The aide also agreed to supply them to the Metropolitan police’s inquiry.
The offer wasn't taken up and although the aide renewed the offer to the Gray team two weeks ago it was again ignored.
We already know that another party in the No 10 flat on 13 November 2020 wasn't investigated either by the police or Gray.
Next, and also in The ST, there is a report which, "calls into question the independence of the Gray report and lifts the lid on the lengths those in power were prepared to revive the so-called Operation Save Big Dog."
It is claimed that "partial drafts" of Gray’s report were circulating in No 10 the day before being officially released and officials have confirm that Samantha Jones, the permanent secretary at No 10, discussed with Gray’s team who would be publicly named as breaking lockdown rules. Sunday Times 'sources' say Gray was lobbied on Tuesday evening to make changes by three senior civil servants: Jones, Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, and Alex Chisholm, the permanent secretary in the Cabinet Office.
Apparently they attempted to persuade Gray to omit names from the report, but she made it plain to them the only way that was going to happen was if they issued her with an instruction - something that needed a senior minister to sign off on and hence publicly acknowledging that the revisions had been made against her will.
"A senior figure in Downing Street revealed that Barclay, Gray’s political boss in the Cabinet Office, was approached and, after discussions with Harri, refused to issue the instruction. Michael Ellis, the Cabinet Office minister, said he would carry out the request only if ordered to do so by Barclay.
"The result of the standoff was that a number of names were removed, because by then the key pressure had already been brought to bear. Up to 30 people had been contacted by Gray telling them she intended to name them. She sent them extracts and they were given until 5pm last Sunday to complain. This part of the Maxwellisation process, under which those criticised in a official report are given the right of reply."
There are also claims in the ST story that those who saw a draft of the report before it was published, say changes to the text were also made, including details about a leaving party on June 18, 2020. Helen MacNamara, the former government ethics boss, who received a fixed penalty notice, brought a karaoke machine to the party in a room close to the cabinet secretary’s office at No 70 Whitehall. In the earlier draft, emails were included which showed staff "discussed the gathering in advance and were warned that it could break the rules." It went ahead anyway as we now know but Gray's report doesm't mention the emails.
A ministerial adviser said: “After Sue made clear that she wanted to print WhatsApp messages and emails, the entire machine fought her.”
Another key passage about the “Abba night” party in the prime minister’s flat on November 13, 2020 was also altered. Again, an earlier draft referred to music being played and stated at what time it came to an end. Two sources close to the process say "Barclay tweaked the relevant section on the eve of publication."
Needless to say the claim was flatly denied by Downing Street but then they would deny it wouldn't they?
Gray has told friends that she felt isolated by the civil service. At least two other Whitehall permanent secretaries are understood to have tried to pressure her to protect colleagues caught up in the scandal. Also, on Twitter there are claims the original report was 60 pages long but only 37 have been published.
For me the two most important things about these stories are that firstly, there are officials and staff sufficiently upset to leak information to the press and secondly the Murdoch owned Sunday Times seems to be going all out to get rid of Johnson. Expect more such stories to emerge until Johnson is forced out.
The problem with lying and interfering in 'independent' investigations is that eventually it all comes out. It might take years but somehow I think it won't take that long, the truth will emerge and it will engulf a lot of people like Barclay and Case and others who have destroyed there own integrity to defend the 'monstrous ego in Downing Street' as Rory Stewart recently described him.
Johnson is still in a hole on partygate and he's still digging.
Next, on the Arcuri affair, he still under investigation by the Greater London Authority and it's being reported that when Johnson left office as Mayor of London he failed to transfer his emails to the GLA's monitoring office as he was required to do under the rules.
Johnson was cleared of misconduct in public office in 2020, the IOPC (Independent Office of Police Conduct) has said that evidence which would have been helpful to its probe “either never existed or has now been deleted” - with the reasons for accepting or rejecting applications to participate in trade missions as Ms Arcuri did, not even recorded. The standards body was also unable to find any formal records of the decision to pay sponsorship to her business interests.
However, the IOPC found that “the material stored in digital devices, email accounts and computer drives belonging to Mr Johnson while Mayor and his appointees was deleted when he left office in 2016.”
City Hall guidance is that emails and documents relating to mayoral business needs to be transferred to executive officers prior to deletion - but it “appears not to have been followed” - once again, another example of him ignoring the rules.
Imperial rules OK?
The news of an announcement this week about the use of imperial measurements looks like a desperate distraction - the Lynton Crosby 'dead cat' move. It will be absolutely fascinating. Industry doesn't want it I am certain. Some old fashioned market traders might but they can do this already although they must also display the weights (for example) in SI units.
Schoolkids aren't taught imperial and haven't been for decades, partly since it's utterly incomprehensible. So, there are a couple of generations who won't understand lbs and cwts. If there are any legislative changes it will probably include a requirement to display weights in both metric and imperial. In other words, the position will be exactly as it is now.
This is supposed to be one of the 'benefits' of Brexit. You can see the cupboard is practically bare.
