Twelve pages and a 133-word conclusion: How Sue Gray’s ‘report’ breaks down
In the general findings, Sue Gray twice refers to ‘failures’.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sue Gray’s update on her investigation into the “partygate” row is 12 pages long, two of which are blank and one of which is the title page.
Of the remaining nine pages, one page lists the terms of reference for the investigation and two provide a timeline of Covid-19 regulations from March 2020 to May 2021.
This leaves just six pages, which are divided into 24 short sections, most of which comprise a single paragraph.
These sections are:
– A summary and timeline of the events being investigated (paragraphs one to five).– How the investigation has been undertaken, including the involvement of the Metropolitan Police (six to 16).– The context of the events being investigated (17 to 22).– Some general findings (23).– A conclusion (24).
There are 467 words in the general findings and 133 words in the conclusion.
In the general findings, Sue Gray twice refers to “failures”:
– “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.”
– “There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times.”
She also on three occasions – twice in the general findings and once in the conclusion – refers to things that “should not” have happened:
– “Some of the events should not have been allowed to take place.”
– “Other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did.”
– “As I have noted, 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.
There are two references in the general findings to alcohol, both in the same paragraph:
“The excessive consumption of alcohol is not appropriate in a professional workplace at any time. Steps must be taken to ensure that every Government department has a clear and robust policy in place covering the consumption of alcohol in the workplace.”
There are 13 mentions in the entire document of the police, including in the final remarks of the conclusion:
“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.”