Sue Gray’s ‘update’: what she wrote – and what she really meant

What Sue Gray wrote: Investigation into alleged gatherings on government premises during Covid restrictions – update.

What she really meant: This is an “update”; it does not include the really damaging stuff, which the Metropolitan Police asked me to take out. Their fault, not mine.

What she wrote: We carried out interviews of over 70 individuals, some more than once, and examined relevant documentary and digital information, such as emails; Whatsapp messages; text messages; photographs and building entry and exit logs. This has also included searches of official records. As such, extensive substantive factual information is now available and has been compiled by me and my team to fulfil my obligation to establish the facts.

What she meant: It’s a goldmine.

What she wrote: The investigative work is now essentially complete.

What she meant: Dear Dame Cressida, I have done your work for you. No need for the police to do anything more than issue the fixed penalty notices.

What she wrote: It is not for me to make a judgment on whether the criminal law has been broken; that is properly a matter for law enforcement.

What she meant: It is pretty obvious though.

What she wrote: As a result of the Metropolitan Police’s investigations, and so as not to prejudice the police investigative process, they have told me that it would only be appropriate to make minimal reference to the gatherings on the dates they are investigating. Unfortunately, this necessarily means that I am extremely limited in what I can say about those events.

What she meant: The Met Police have made a dreadful mess of all this.

What she wrote: I did consider whether it would be better to pause, as provided for in the terms of reference, and wait until the conclusion of the police investigation before publishing anything. However, given the widespread public interest in, and concern about, these matters, and to avoid further delay, I am providing an update on the investigation and I am setting out some general findings now.

What she meant: Clowns to the right of me, jokers to the right – I am doing the best I can in the circumstances.

What she wrote: A small number of government officials and special advisers, because of the nature of their jobs directly supporting the prime minister and other ministers, continued to attend their offices for the purposes of work, as permitted by an exemption under the regulations.

What she meant: Some people might have thought they were special.

What she wrote: It is important to remember the stringency of the public health regulations in force in England over the relevant periods and that criminal sanctions were applied to many found to be in breach of them. The hardship under which citizens across the country worked, lived and sadly even died while observing the government’s regulations and guidance rigorously are known only too well.

What she meant: Some people might have suffered a loss of perspective.

What she wrote: When the government was asking citizens to accept far-reaching restrictions on their lives, some of the behaviour surrounding these gatherings is difficult to justify.

What she meant: These people must have been out of their minds.

What she wrote: At least some of the gatherings in question represent a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time.

What she meant: The guidelines were broken, and the law as well.

What she wrote: There were failures of leadership and judgement by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times. Some of the events should not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did.

What she meant: The prime minister is responsible.

What she wrote: The excessive consumption of alcohol is not appropriate in a professional workplace at any time.

What she meant: I was shocked.

What she wrote: Some staff wanted to raise concerns about behaviours they witnessed at work but at times felt unable to do so.

What she meant: Some officials were shocked at the time but felt intimidated by their superiors. The prime minister must take the blame for allowing such a poor working atmosphere.

What she wrote: The number of staff working in No 10 Downing Street has steadily increased in recent years … The leadership structures are fragmented and complicated and this has sometimes led to the blurring of lines of accountability. Too much responsibility and expectation is placed on the senior official whose principal function is the direct support of the prime minister. This should be addressed as a matter of priority.

What she meant: Martin Reynolds, principal private secretary to the prime minister, was doing an impossible job. It is the prime minister’s fault.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

What she wrote: The gatherings within the scope of this investigation are spread over a 20-month period – a period that has been unique in recent times in terms of the complexity and breadth of the demands on public servants and indeed the general public.

What she meant: Mistakes were made. Some excuses were also made. I wasn’t impressed by them.

What she wrote: A number of these gatherings should not have been allowed to take place or to develop in the way that they did. There is significant learning to be drawn from these events which must be addressed immediately across government. This does not need to wait for the police investigations to be concluded.

What she meant: Anyone who thinks Boris Johnson is going to change his personality is living in a dream world. We do not need to wait for the police to know that.