Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News1 min ago
So Lets Put A Labour Politician In Charge Of Investigating A Tory Pm!
50 Answers
https:/
....The cred is gone before it starts, just drop it already same goes for Beer and ruby gate, for gawds sake we are sick to death of this trivial BS, move on!
....The cred is gone before it starts, just drop it already same goes for Beer and ruby gate, for gawds sake we are sick to death of this trivial BS, move on!
Answers
Yes Harmans not squeaky clean but I think she would be fair. And I am in agreement with TTT. Forget this nonsense and Beergate and get on with running the country, for starters sort out the economy, dump costly green policies and stop illegal migrants.
07:29 Thu 30th Jun 2022
The committee has a built in Conservative majority, so they appointed Harman to lead the investigation.
// The Privileges Committee is made up of seven MPs - two Labour MPs, one Lib Dem and four Conservatives.
Labour's Chris Bryant - recused himself from the investigation.
The committee voted unanimously to replace Mr Bryant with former deputy Labour leader Ms Harman. //
// The Privileges Committee is made up of seven MPs - two Labour MPs, one Lib Dem and four Conservatives.
Labour's Chris Bryant - recused himself from the investigation.
The committee voted unanimously to replace Mr Bryant with former deputy Labour leader Ms Harman. //
It said it would be seeking "witness information and evidence" and that hearings would begin in the autumn.
Mr Johnson has denied knowingly giving the Commons wrong information, saying it was "what I believed to be true".
The committee says it is willing to take evidence from people anonymously provided their identity can be verified.
It says information may include evidence of "Mr Johnson's knowledge of the activities in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office under Covid regulations, from the occurrence of those events until now" and "any briefing given to, or inquiries made by, Mr Johnson relating to those events."
Lol, I wonder who’ll be first in a very long queue? You taking bets, ToraToraTora? Rofl.
Mr Johnson has denied knowingly giving the Commons wrong information, saying it was "what I believed to be true".
The committee says it is willing to take evidence from people anonymously provided their identity can be verified.
It says information may include evidence of "Mr Johnson's knowledge of the activities in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office under Covid regulations, from the occurrence of those events until now" and "any briefing given to, or inquiries made by, Mr Johnson relating to those events."
Lol, I wonder who’ll be first in a very long queue? You taking bets, ToraToraTora? Rofl.
naomi24
//How much is this stupidity costing the public purse? Does anyone know?//
One might argue that the question of honesty in the highest public office in the UK is priceless, it’s the cornerstone of democracy and governments must always remain accountable to their electorate.
Unless you’re Boris Johnson.
//How much is this stupidity costing the public purse? Does anyone know?//
One might argue that the question of honesty in the highest public office in the UK is priceless, it’s the cornerstone of democracy and governments must always remain accountable to their electorate.
Unless you’re Boris Johnson.
Worry not ... it is all a smoke screen to hide what is unfolding and to blur the lines for the electorate. Whilst Labour twist in the wind, Durham plod has started taking lockdown seriously for some strange reason, after pooh poohing any notion of retrosperctive action, and is dishing out back dated fines for misdemeanours related to it like confetti at a wedding. If Starmer, and his flasher sidekick, do resign after being fined Boris will call a snap G.E. whilst Labour tear each other to bits in a scramble to be leader. October looks good.
From Sky News.
//Back in April, MPs backed a Labour-led motion calling for the privileges committee to examine allegations the prime minister misled the Commons when he denied lockdown rules were broken in Downing Street.
Tory MPs had earlier been ordered to back a government attempt to delay the vote until inquiries by the Met Police and civil servant Sue Gray had concluded.
But, in a late reversal shortly before the debate began, Commons Leader Mark Spencer said Tory MPs could vote however they wanted on Labour's motion.
Subsequently, the motion was nodded through without a vote.//
It seems that Tory MP’s also want the truth but 148 of them especially so? After all, who wouldn’t want transparency, honesty and morals in government?
//Back in April, MPs backed a Labour-led motion calling for the privileges committee to examine allegations the prime minister misled the Commons when he denied lockdown rules were broken in Downing Street.
Tory MPs had earlier been ordered to back a government attempt to delay the vote until inquiries by the Met Police and civil servant Sue Gray had concluded.
But, in a late reversal shortly before the debate began, Commons Leader Mark Spencer said Tory MPs could vote however they wanted on Labour's motion.
Subsequently, the motion was nodded through without a vote.//
It seems that Tory MP’s also want the truth but 148 of them especially so? After all, who wouldn’t want transparency, honesty and morals in government?
Togo
//Worry not ... it is all a smoke screen to hide what is unfolding and to blur the lines for the electorate.//
Lol, deluded beyond belief. The electorate have wised your to Johnson after Partygate, last weeks by-election results showed that.
They’ve now got the measure of Johnson and his government.
A snap election would lead to disaster and the back benchers know it.
https:/
//Worry not ... it is all a smoke screen to hide what is unfolding and to blur the lines for the electorate.//
Lol, deluded beyond belief. The electorate have wised your to Johnson after Partygate, last weeks by-election results showed that.
They’ve now got the measure of Johnson and his government.
A snap election would lead to disaster and the back benchers know it.
https:/
Whilst we are waiting for Durham plod to make the carefully considered judgement call, why not wonder about the "judgment" shown by the Met? They have been placed into special measures after evidence of deeply flawed procedures and attitudes was exposed. Would a reasonable thinker wonder whether a good lawyer could challenge all those contentious "judgements" taken regarding, amongst other things, lockdown and work related meetings. Did the Met have meetings during lockdown to discuss and pursue other preople for doing the same? Will all the fines be rescinded based on flawed systemic incompetence or malicious intent? There is a lot of mileage left in this confected shambles yet.
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.