Don’t blame the Met over Partygate, they’ve been very busy recently

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

The Met Police have been criticised for not investigating Partygate thoroughly enough (PA)

Following the release of photos showing Boris Johnson at a Downing Street party in violation of his own lockdown laws, the Met Police have been criticised for not investigating Partygate thoroughly enough and letting the prime minister off with just a single £50 fine.

Yet people forget just how busy the Met have been recently. They have been hard at it – strip-searching children, attacking a peaceful vigil for a woman murdered by one of their colleagues, and swapping racist and misogynist WhatsApp messages.

There are only so many hours in a day after all.

Sasha Simic

London

I withdraw my consent

The ITV revelation shows photographs of Boris attending, drink in hand, the leaving party for departing communications chief Lee Cain, just two days after said Boris ordered a national Covid lockdown.

The same party the same Boris said hadn’t happened when asked, in the Commons that December, whether there had been a party on that very date, in that very location. The same Boris, it is now revealed, who has just tried to get Sue Gray to keep her report private and away from the public gaze.

Boris couldn’t have attended this, or other, parties and not known they were happening – and therefore must have knowingly lied to parliament about them.The only alternative is that Boris shows unimaginably bad judgement, both in failing to understand these were illegal parties and in failing to appoint advisers who would have told him so, something that frankly seems unbelievable and is barely, if any, better.

Breaking the law, lying about it and (so far) refusing to resign when caught brings the office and government into disrepute. These were laws made by him, to save lives. You cannot make the law and then break the law and then not resign or be sacked.

Imagine the outrage if a bus driver was fined multiple times for speeding while driving passengers. The bus driver would lose his licence and likely his job. Remember this – Boris is driving the UK around.

If we are still governed by consent in this country, then while Boris stays as prime minister, I withdraw my consent. Maybe it’s time others do too?

Ian Henderson

Norwich

Limited and specific law-breaking

The latest party snaps from 10 Downing Street during lockdown show (apart from the obvious party trappings) a red box unceremoniously dumped on a chair, unlike the Queen’s crown, which was very ceremoniously positioned at the state opening of parliament to represent the absent sovereign.

This is apparently enough to get the PM off the hook – and if more is required, the suggestion that the picture was taken by the official photographer (like the several of the PM jogging in various locations, presumably), should be enough to dispel any lingering doubts that he was in fact working, and not breaking the law.

He has already been fined for breaking the law, but that was only in a limited and specific way, like the way in which this government is proposing to break international law, which is apparently the new legal code.

So does that mean that stealing is now allowed, if the limited and specific purpose is to feed your children?

Katharine Powell

Neston

Priorities

The Conservatives have got their priorities all wrong. If they had shown the same ingenuity in running the country as they have in defending the prime minister, how much better our lives would be?

Roger Hinds

Surrey

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

Policy over personality

While enjoying Marie Le Conte’s column, I couldn’t help but think that reporters dwell too much on personalities in politics instead of policies.

Is it that columnists find it difficult to explain the ramifications of each of the parties’ manifestos? Or is it that there is so little difference between the various manifestos from which the electorate have to choose a party to govern?

Are we interested in seeing the PM’s wife/husband and family in photo opportunities? Surely we, the electorate, are more interested in how and when we will be able to heat and eat at home. Plan for our financial future. See that our children have future opportunities to succeed in life.

This is not to decry Ms Le Conte’s article as it did entertain, and does every time I read her well-written column. However, a detailed critique of the manifestoes by the country’s eminent political, financial, socially astute, etc practitioners would be more helpful than being told who is the flavour of the month.

Keith Poole

Basingstoke