Don't Panic ! Pannick Report Here

[Peter Pedant]

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://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1102126/Joint_Opinion_of_Lord_Pannick_QC_and_Jason_Pobjoy_1.9.2022_-_Committee_of_Privileges_-_Boris_Johnson__Matter_referred_on_21_April_2022_.pdf

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?

[naomi24]

Gromit, //It’s pathetic asking for your own thread to be closed because you didn’t like the replies.//

See 10.24 here.

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1808954.html


The only reason this enquiry is going ahead and moreover the only reason this cowboy 'committee' has bent the rules to ensure that 'intention' isn't considered, is to remove Boris from public life altogether. Not enough to remove him as PM - they want him out of parliament because his strength and determination scares the hell of out them. They may well succeed - but I doubt they'll achieve their purpose because, without the restrictions necessarily imposed upon Members of Parliament, he could upset them far more out of office than he ever did in it - and I sincerely hope he does.

Do you understand now, Gromit?

[Ellipsis]

> /Boris hired him? Who paid?/
> We did

Then we hired him!

Why are we spending our money to come up with legal opinion on the behaviour of a Parliamentary committee that we're also paying for?

It would be bad enough if the committee was Labour-heavy, but it actually has a Tory majority!

Intentionally misled: misled, then found out unequivocally that he had misled, then failed to correct the record equals intentionally misled. It's not the initial misleading, necessarily, it's the failure to correct.

Although in this case I think we all know that he knew from the start that it was a lie. We're just having to play silly games because he won't own up to knowing what a party was without having it pointed out to him.

[THECORBYLOON]

In what way have the rules been bent?

MPs knew what the motion was and it was passed unopposed.

[naomi24]

//It [the committee] made the decision after taking advice from a parliamentary official, who said intent was "not relevant" to deciding whether Mr Johnson broke the rules.//

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62763975

[gulliver1]

Why doesn't Boris just change the rules ,
(The Tories are good at that) before he goes .
And then make himself not guilty.

[THECORBYLOON]

Harriet Harman and Sir Bernard Jenkins wrote a joint article in The Times on August 12th, which included,

"There have been unfounded allegations about ‘goalposts being moved’ and ‘rules changed’. But this is inaccurate. No rules or terms of reference have been changed at any point, and the Committee is carrying out this inquiry as instructed by the House and according to the rules of the House."

One is a Labour Member, the other is a Tory and both make it clear nothing has been changed.

[Peter Pedant]

// didn't he roast & eat some babies - or is that a myth?//

no the corpus delicti was a pigs head innit
corpus porcinum , dicimus, in Latina

and No jim - the argument is not often tried - "the tribunal I stand before, I hold does not have these powers"
Failed in 1648 Chas I, and some times thereafter

Fairness is not ofter argued - rules of natual justice - and the procedure was vetted by some old bagga - late appeal ct judge.

ALot of points argued by Pannick occur in other courts

Crime - witness have paper bags over their heads
or give evidence by video
Family courts are routinely anonymised
Hearsay is commonly now admissible
The standard of proof is hardly ever criminal now ( except in crime that is!)

I began to see why he had never really made it as a judge

I also thought 'opinions' were - this what I think will happen - not "let me argue one side in front of the press whilst someone else pays me £130 000"

[Peter Pedant]

// who said intent was "not relevant" to deciding whether Mr Johnson broke the rules//

he is right - the tribunals can do this - - make up their own rules.

as Pannick says they arent courts ( 1689 Bill of Rights - I called it an Act before - oopsie)

and then says they should follow precedent - er excuse me?

we dont see the whole picture in this one

I regard this as a direct parallel to "the election was stolen" stateside

[naomi24]

11:23 , But that can't be true, Corby. If it were they wouldn't have needed to refer it to 'a parliamentary official' (who he then?). Furthermore, bearing in mind that Boris, helpfully for the Labourites, was assassinated by members of his own party, the fact that one is Conservative and the other Labour is neither here nor there. On this occasion they're both singing from the same hymn sheet. Isn't inclusivity wonderful? Or is it 'diversity'? Oh well, whatever.

[Peter Pedant]

// for this particular hearing, deemed 'intent' irrelevant. How can that possibly be right?//

er because it is not a criminal tribunal - I suddenly realised when I read N's outraged one-liner - -

As for flunkey - who he den? - does it matter? There is a retired appeal court judge advising the committee

I recommend reading the report itself rather than Mickey Mouse Daily. - BUT you have to know what the normal rules are , that Pannick takes issue with - in that they arent being followed
and it is really weird when you get to the bit where Pannick says "and they should be!" when he has already said " and so they dont have to be!"

[Peter Pedant]

adviser
The committee's own lawyer, former judge Sir Ernest Ryder, has previously defended this, saying potential witnesses may not be prepared to give evidence if their identity is made public.

er from Naomi's citation - she just didnt read that far OR quoted selectively

[THECORBYLOON]

NAOMI, the committee had its own legal advice from a former Court of Appeal Judge and he would be aware of the differences between a judicial inquiry and a Parliamentary inquiry with regard to what criteria have to be proven.

[naomi24]

Corby, //Last month, the committee decided it would not have to prove Mr Johnson deliberately misled MPs to show he committed a "contempt of Parliament" by obstructing its work.

Lord Pannick says the committee's approach is inconsistent with past cases where intent was taken into account and the process would be deemed "unlawful" if it was tested in a court. //

'The committee decided'. It's naïve in the extreme to believe this is anything other than a stitch up - unless it suits you to believe it.

[THECORBYLOON]

There are seven MPs on the committee. Do you believe the four Tory MPs are part of the alleged stitch-up?

If a decision is made about a matter, can it never be to agree that their original views about that matter were correct?

[Peter Pedant]

// Lord Pannick says the committee's approach is inconsistent with past cases where intent was taken into account and the process would be deemed "unlawful" if it was tested in a court.//

decent quote to work on. This is why I didnt understand it:

"inconsistent with past cases" - that is precedent and stare decisis. But precedent may not count here. And oh heavens precedent may not be followed to create new law.

“Equity is not past the age of child bearing” (per Lord Denning MR, Eves v Eves [1975] 1WLR 1338, CA). - - = equity can change and so can other branches

and it wd be deemed unlawful in a court - - where Pannick has already said courts do not rule on things like this. This wasnt a mistake - the system was set up like this in 1689 - and followed in america in 1788 ( executive privilege).

A parallel is 'if we were in France it would nt be like this" yeah but we arent, we are here.

Pannick is paid to know this

so we have ,PP comments, quite a lot of
X is not the case, but if X WERE the case then Z
but X is not the case so Z does not follow altho you have just said it does

and this goes on for 22 pages

£130 000 later.... can I have a law job please?

[tomus42]

He's clearly a liar, and this is the second job he's lost because of it.

The inquiry and it's conclusions won't change any of that.

[Peter Pedant]

I thought an opinion was
'Look this is how I think it will go...'
and not
" I need to write lots to get lots of moolah. Much of the script need not be apposite ( or can even be straightforward tosh ) as everyone knows, you cant litigate over this" - and those who dont have to PPPAAAAAAYYYYYYY! - signed a lawyer ( Lord)

[Peter Pedant]

the second job he's lost

six or seven - someone has actually be keeping a tally
Times Obit yesterday - Charlie Gorbals Wilson - Editor of the Times fired someone for forging a invoice - - one B johnson

and that was in the eighties

and does saying Zag-Ratcliffe was doing only union stuff in Iran in commons count ? - long prison sentence for her, then
et ibi manserit quinque annis.
( and she remained there 5 years - a little bit of doctored vulgate for Latinists)

[naomi24]

Corby, //There are seven MPs on the committee. Do you believe the four Tory MPs are part of the alleged stitch-up?//

Why not? Do you doubt that members of his own party were responsible for his assassination?

//If a decision is made about a matter, can it never be to agree that their original views about that matter were correct?//

Not if they aren't obliged to establish 'intent'. Without that he's guilty before they start.

[THECORBYLOON]

Your argument is that they changed the terms of the inquiry but the Motion, passed without objection, did not specify any intent.

If the decision of the Committee you're referring to confirmed there need be no intent, what exactly did they change between the date of that Motion and their decision?