ChatterBank4 mins ago
'Hand On Heart, I Did Not Lie'
Boris Johnson challenged in hearing: Key moments - BBC News
https:/
.. Lie or no lie?
https:/
.. Lie or no lie?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Roobaba. 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.
// ‘ it's already common ground that Parliament *was* misled’
Common ground? Amongst whom? //
Amongst Johnson for a start. From his written statement:
"4. So I accept that the House of Commons was misled by my statements that the Rules and Guidance had been followed completely at No."
https:/
10."
Common ground? Amongst whom? //
Amongst Johnson for a start. From his written statement:
"4. So I accept that the House of Commons was misled by my statements that the Rules and Guidance had been followed completely at No."
https:/
10."
You'd be presumably hard-pressed to find any MPs who didn't, by now, have a fixed opinion of Johnson in one way or another. Conversely, I'm sure you'd agree that having a Committee stacked with Johnson's outspoken allies would be just as biased.
The majority of the Committee is Conservative, anyway, so even if Harman's bias affected her position, then it still comes down to the opinions of those four.
The majority of the Committee is Conservative, anyway, so even if Harman's bias affected her position, then it still comes down to the opinions of those four.
Does a, "kangaroo court" not tend to find guilt regardless
yeah you have impromptu hearings, and if the fella is acquitted you wouldnt use the phrase ' kanga ct' you would say he explained himself to his superiors
BUT
these are not court proceeding CBL - arent meant to be, werent billed as such, and dont behave like one
If it doesnt look like a pig then it may not be one.
There is no ppoint is saying that they all have to look like pigs
not everything has to be squeezed into - the rule is "it must be a proper legal process? " ( police investigation isnt for example) ( small employers are recognised in the employment courts as obviously unable to split investigation, hearing and decision by different people)
yeah you have impromptu hearings, and if the fella is acquitted you wouldnt use the phrase ' kanga ct' you would say he explained himself to his superiors
BUT
these are not court proceeding CBL - arent meant to be, werent billed as such, and dont behave like one
If it doesnt look like a pig then it may not be one.
There is no ppoint is saying that they all have to look like pigs
not everything has to be squeezed into - the rule is "it must be a proper legal process? " ( police investigation isnt for example) ( small employers are recognised in the employment courts as obviously unable to split investigation, hearing and decision by different people)
Yes, PP, this is AB. You say something like that every day - and not just once. I can't imagine why you haven't got the hang of it yet.
Clare, //You'd be presumably hard-pressed to find any MPs who didn't, by now, have a fixed opinion of Johnson in one way or another.//
Probably - but selecting someone who has gone public with her adverse opinions is another ball game altogether. Principle is clearly thin on the ground. I can understand why you have no objection to that though.
Clare, //You'd be presumably hard-pressed to find any MPs who didn't, by now, have a fixed opinion of Johnson in one way or another.//
Probably - but selecting someone who has gone public with her adverse opinions is another ball game altogether. Principle is clearly thin on the ground. I can understand why you have no objection to that though.
I think the principle is that you should separate your role on the Committee from your personal views. There is nothing, to my mind, that sending a tweet achieves to undermine this. It is true that Chris Bryant recused himself for, essentially, similar reasons, and in that sense perhaps Harman could have followed suit; but, given that the Committee as a whole agreed that she should be chair, and given that anyway Johnson's supporters would do doubt have found some other reason to object to any other Chair, it feels more like an excuse to undermine the work of the Committee because it suits some to protect Johnson, than a genuine concern.
As I've outlined, there are multiple objective questions that can be reasonably asked and assessed. I'm sure you'll read the report, when it is published, carefully to assess the soundness of the conclusions reached.
As I've outlined, there are multiple objective questions that can be reasonably asked and assessed. I'm sure you'll read the report, when it is published, carefully to assess the soundness of the conclusions reached.
Still, as I say, the Committee is unanimously satisfied that Harman is capable of chairing its work. Incidentally, so too is the House, since the motion to add her to the Committee passed without vote on June 14th.
It would, granted, be highly unusual to raise objections in the House, but it was open for MPs to do so, and they didn't. All of this fuss about Kangaroo Courts, and Harman in particular, is a transparent attempt to discredit the Committee's work before it's completed.
It would, granted, be highly unusual to raise objections in the House, but it was open for MPs to do so, and they didn't. All of this fuss about Kangaroo Courts, and Harman in particular, is a transparent attempt to discredit the Committee's work before it's completed.
Clare, //Still, as I say, the Committee is unanimously satisfied that Harman is capable of chairing its work. Incidentally, so too is the House, since the motion to add her to the Committee passed without vote on June 14th. //
Boris isn't the only one whose honesty could be called into question.
//All of this fuss about Kangaroo Courts, and Harman in particular, is a transparent attempt to discredit the Committee's work before it's completed. //
Its work was discredited before it got off the ground. Like it or not a Committee that cannot be said to be entirely impartial in its decisions is a kangaroo court.
Boris isn't the only one whose honesty could be called into question.
//All of this fuss about Kangaroo Courts, and Harman in particular, is a transparent attempt to discredit the Committee's work before it's completed. //
Its work was discredited before it got off the ground. Like it or not a Committee that cannot be said to be entirely impartial in its decisions is a kangaroo court.
I didn't realise I would have to spell out that Johnson accepted that he misled the House, and therefore the Committee also has.
The only questions remaining surround ZM's (2), (3) above, ie the extent to which this fact that the House was misled matters; and, as Johnson's entire defence rests on, the extent to which he "wittingly" misled the House (or, as the Committee's report put it, that it was "reckless").
It's obviously common ground amongst all relevant parties that the House was misled, when Johnson told it that "all rules and guidance were followed at all times".
The only questions remaining surround ZM's (2), (3) above, ie the extent to which this fact that the House was misled matters; and, as Johnson's entire defence rests on, the extent to which he "wittingly" misled the House (or, as the Committee's report put it, that it was "reckless").
It's obviously common ground amongst all relevant parties that the House was misled, when Johnson told it that "all rules and guidance were followed at all times".
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles77 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles92 mins ago
Crosswords97 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles128 mins ago
