Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Partygate Probe Is Flawed And Unfair…
… says lawyer advising Boris Johnson.
//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.
It made the decision after taking advice from a parliamentary official, who said intent was "not relevant" to deciding whether Mr Johnson broke the rules.
But Lord Pannick, the top lawyer hired by the government to examine the committee's approach, said the inquiry needs to establish "that Mr Johnson intended to mislead the House [of Commons] - that is that he knew that what he told the House was incorrect". //
https:/
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.
//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.
It made the decision after taking advice from a parliamentary official, who said intent was "not relevant" to deciding whether Mr Johnson broke the rules.
But Lord Pannick, the top lawyer hired by the government to examine the committee's approach, said the inquiry needs to establish "that Mr Johnson intended to mislead the House [of Commons] - that is that he knew that what he told the House was incorrect". //
https:/
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.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In answer to TTT's post, that defence won't wash, for two reasons: firstly, Johnson has received fines for his participation in at least one of those events, alongside multiple others; secondly, Johnson himself has conceded in Parliament that his original statement (ie, that there were no events, or if there were then no rules were broken) was wrong:
// I am happy to set on the record now that when I came to this House and said in all sincerity that the rules and guidance had been followed at all times, it was what I believed to be true... So I would like to correct the record ...// (25th May, https:/
There's no doubt, then, that the initial statement(s) was/were misleading.
// I am happy to set on the record now that when I came to this House and said in all sincerity that the rules and guidance had been followed at all times, it was what I believed to be true... So I would like to correct the record ...// (25th May, https:/
There's no doubt, then, that the initial statement(s) was/were misleading.
Why was this thread started when this one was already underway last night?
https:/
https:/
Sue Gray concluded it WAS a party(s) and broke the rules, the police concluded the same and issued a FPN.
It is those verdicts that the privileges committee are basing their investigation on. What Johnson told parliament, and what has subsequently been established as the truth.
It would be difficult to prove that Johnson didn’t know he was at a party, or that he didn’t know it was against the rules, when he wrote the rules, preached them and was at the 13th November incident. Lord Pannick’s opinion seems to be totally missing the point.
It is those verdicts that the privileges committee are basing their investigation on. What Johnson told parliament, and what has subsequently been established as the truth.
It would be difficult to prove that Johnson didn’t know he was at a party, or that he didn’t know it was against the rules, when he wrote the rules, preached them and was at the 13th November incident. Lord Pannick’s opinion seems to be totally missing the point.
// Jim, please! It's not about 'statements'. It's about the ability of this committee to change the rules to allow them to condemn without establishing 'intention'. //
I addressed this in my earlier post. The Committee hasn't "change[d] the rules" (if anything, Pannick's legal position is, by trying to apply strict legal scrutiny to a political proceeding); and I'm not saying it's only about Statements.
I addressed this in my earlier post. The Committee hasn't "change[d] the rules" (if anything, Pannick's legal position is, by trying to apply strict legal scrutiny to a political proceeding); and I'm not saying it's only about Statements.
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.