Leicester Tigers Vs Bristol Bears - Is...
Sport1 min ago
Don't Panic ! Pannick Report Here
56 Answers
Hi readers
have you read in Toytown news, - Noddy the know-all
that Boris, blessed pure unsullied soul had hired Lord Pannick to
whitewash him?
You had? - but cdnt find the report?
well it is here
https:/
read and enjoy - I have a few things to do before I settle down to it
oh, purists need a question, or else whine to Miss:
What do you think? - can you read this is more apt?
have you read in Toytown news, - Noddy the know-all
that Boris, blessed pure unsullied soul had hired Lord Pannick to
whitewash him?
You had? - but cdnt find the report?
well it is here
https:/
read and enjoy - I have a few things to do before I settle down to it
oh, purists need a question, or else whine to Miss:
What do you think? - can you read this is more apt?
Answers
I`d rather not download a pdf file from someone on AB but thanks anyway.
19:29 Fri 02nd Sep 2022
https:/
This is another government website
This is another government website
Yes, amazed at how defensive he was for a cross-bencher…..until I read he’d been appointed by Boris to perform the large brush-work.
Fail to see how it could endanger democracy in the future, given that Johnson has already watered down the ministerial code.
As ever, Chris Bryant has the measure of the situation.
https:/
Good of Boris to spend £130,000 of our money to have a go at extricating himself from a sticky spot though.
https:/
Wriggling and squirming to the last.
Shame on his farewell tour that he couldn’t visit the nurses and doctors who kept him alive during Covid, preferring jollies with the RAF, Royal Navy and Police.
What a scum bag.
Fail to see how it could endanger democracy in the future, given that Johnson has already watered down the ministerial code.
As ever, Chris Bryant has the measure of the situation.
https:/
Good of Boris to spend £130,000 of our money to have a go at extricating himself from a sticky spot though.
https:/
Wriggling and squirming to the last.
Shame on his farewell tour that he couldn’t visit the nurses and doctors who kept him alive during Covid, preferring jollies with the RAF, Royal Navy and Police.
What a scum bag.
Quite surprised by the report - Pannick is a mega brayne
1) Parliamentary privilege is not justiciable, but if it were
well its not, durr ( answerable to a court, no according to the 1689 Law)
2) Committee procedure is a living creecher - but not this time it has to follow precedent like a court
3 everyone knows it isnt a court
4. everyone knows that cttees are well known not to follow strict procedure but this one must
5.everyone knows that there are two levels of proof - beyond reasonable doubt and balance of probs. I will revive the third movable one which was laid to rest 30 y ago in in re H ( standard of proof by the then House of Lords in which I sit
6.No court in this land has ever allowed anonymised witnesses, or witness or party identity to be suppressed. I ( as Lord Pannick) wave the sword of Justice of free speech whatever, even if it allows the brave witnesses to be victimised. Onward I say with Erskine May !
7. You have to show the fella lied, even tho that has been now abandoned in Ivey v Genting - because of the obvious let out - - - pigs fly? I honestly thought they did!
and then I sort of stopped reading
1) Parliamentary privilege is not justiciable, but if it were
well its not, durr ( answerable to a court, no according to the 1689 Law)
2) Committee procedure is a living creecher - but not this time it has to follow precedent like a court
3 everyone knows it isnt a court
4. everyone knows that cttees are well known not to follow strict procedure but this one must
5.everyone knows that there are two levels of proof - beyond reasonable doubt and balance of probs. I will revive the third movable one which was laid to rest 30 y ago in in re H ( standard of proof by the then House of Lords in which I sit
6.No court in this land has ever allowed anonymised witnesses, or witness or party identity to be suppressed. I ( as Lord Pannick) wave the sword of Justice of free speech whatever, even if it allows the brave witnesses to be victimised. Onward I say with Erskine May !
7. You have to show the fella lied, even tho that has been now abandoned in Ivey v Genting - because of the obvious let out - - - pigs fly? I honestly thought they did!
and then I sort of stopped reading
Replying to FatticusInch from the other thread:
// Basically, if Johnson has done nothing wrong then he shouldn’t be worried and ought to jump at the chance to clear his name, shouldn’t he? //
This misunderstands Johnson's argument, which is that the Committee rules might not give Johnson the fairest opportunity to do precisely that. Besides, whether or not the rules the Privileges Committee are using are fair, it is at least a standard legal defence to argue that such rules aren't, so I'm not surprised that Johnson is trying it and I don't think it's fair to take it as a tacit admission of guilt that he's trying to criticise the rules of the Inquiry in his favour.
// Basically, if Johnson has done nothing wrong then he shouldn’t be worried and ought to jump at the chance to clear his name, shouldn’t he? //
This misunderstands Johnson's argument, which is that the Committee rules might not give Johnson the fairest opportunity to do precisely that. Besides, whether or not the rules the Privileges Committee are using are fair, it is at least a standard legal defence to argue that such rules aren't, so I'm not surprised that Johnson is trying it and I don't think it's fair to take it as a tacit admission of guilt that he's trying to criticise the rules of the Inquiry in his favour.
Let’s be honest Jim, everyone knows that given his record in office and beyond it’s patently obvious that he’s intentionally misled Parliament, the person and his previous point in one direction only: dishonesty.
Even his own party know it, that’s why they finally got round to ditching him and any legal wrangling by Pannick only exacerbates what he’s done.
Even his own party know it, that’s why they finally got round to ditching him and any legal wrangling by Pannick only exacerbates what he’s done.
Well, possibly. Still, I find the argument that if he's innocent he has nothing to fear to be somewhat irritating. Innocent people have nothing to fear from a *fair* process: they're obviously entitled to argue that the process isn't fair if they think it is not.
I have no particular intention to defend Johnson, but I wanted to say at least that. I think this argument is wrong, and I am to an extent surprised that Lord Pannick was the author, but Johnson's clearly well within his rights to try and make it.
I have no particular intention to defend Johnson, but I wanted to say at least that. I think this argument is wrong, and I am to an extent surprised that Lord Pannick was the author, but Johnson's clearly well within his rights to try and make it.
As the other thread as been closed,
NAOMI posted in that thread, "How can 'intent' possibly be irrelevant? A swift and very convenient moving of the goalposts by the less than fragrant Ms Harman's committee. It stinks."
Have you read the Commons motion that led to this particular inquiry?
It reads as follows,
'That this House—
(1) notes that, given the issue of fixed penalty notices by the police in relation to events in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office, assertions the Rt hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has made on the floor of the House about the legality of activities in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office under Covid regulations, including but not limited to the following answers given at Prime Minister’s Questions: 1 December 2021, that “all guidance was followed in No. 10”, Official Report vol. 704, col. 909; 8 December 2021 that “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372; 8 December 2021 that “I am sickened myself and furious about that, but I repeat what I have said to him: I have been repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372 and 8 December 2021 that “the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 379, appear to amount to misleading the House; and
(2) orders that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider whether the Rt hon Member’s conduct amounted to a contempt of the House, but that the Committee shall not begin substantive consideration of the matter until the inquiries currently being conducted by the Metropolitan Police have been concluded'
There was a debate on that unamended motion on the 21st April and it was accepted unanimously without a division.
There is no reference in that motion relating to knowledge or intent to mislead and it was on that basis the inquiry was set up.
It is also worth a reminder that the Committee has a Tory majority.
NAOMI posted in that thread, "How can 'intent' possibly be irrelevant? A swift and very convenient moving of the goalposts by the less than fragrant Ms Harman's committee. It stinks."
Have you read the Commons motion that led to this particular inquiry?
It reads as follows,
'That this House—
(1) notes that, given the issue of fixed penalty notices by the police in relation to events in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office, assertions the Rt hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has made on the floor of the House about the legality of activities in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office under Covid regulations, including but not limited to the following answers given at Prime Minister’s Questions: 1 December 2021, that “all guidance was followed in No. 10”, Official Report vol. 704, col. 909; 8 December 2021 that “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372; 8 December 2021 that “I am sickened myself and furious about that, but I repeat what I have said to him: I have been repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372 and 8 December 2021 that “the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 379, appear to amount to misleading the House; and
(2) orders that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider whether the Rt hon Member’s conduct amounted to a contempt of the House, but that the Committee shall not begin substantive consideration of the matter until the inquiries currently being conducted by the Metropolitan Police have been concluded'
There was a debate on that unamended motion on the 21st April and it was accepted unanimously without a division.
There is no reference in that motion relating to knowledge or intent to mislead and it was on that basis the inquiry was set up.
It is also worth a reminder that the Committee has a Tory majority.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.