// ClareTG0ld is aware of the reason I won’t enter into discussion on topics such as this... I do not enter into discussion on topics such as this with ClareTG0ld - and ClareTG0ld knows why. //
I'm actually not, unless it's something that started at some point on Friday. Still, I'm not complaining, and Naomi is of course entitled to not reply to me or any other member if she so wishes.
On the other hand, my comment yesterday at 8:32 doesn't includes much input that could reasonably be described as my own opinion. Instead it:
a) cites (and quotes verbatim from) a report from the Privileges Committee, which addresses many of the points in the video;
b) makes clear that the Committee took legal advice themselves, including from the Speaker's Office;
c) points out one easily-verifiable fact about Pannick's impartiality in this context, omitted from OG's video link;
d) Points out that the ultimate arbiter is Parliament as a whole, in a vote that will be held on Monday.
What it doesn't do is:
a) comment, from my own perspective, on the merits of the legal position taken by either the video or the Committee's response to Lord Pannick's submissions (merely confining myself, as stated above, to noting that the Committee had also taken legal advice from multiple sources);
b) comment, from my own perspective, on the merits of any other (non-legal) opinions expressed in the video.
In that sense, in not entering into a discussion about this based on who posted it, you're refusing to engage, not with me, but with substantive legal and factual aspects of the case. As far as the legal aspects go, it goes without saying that I am no authority compared with either Lord Pannick or Mr. Barrett from the video. But the Office of Speaker's Counsel, and Sir Ernest Ryder, presumably *are*. And as far as the factual aspects go, it's easy for anybody to verify that Lord Pannick was part of Johnson's legal team throughout the investigation, and therefore not impartial or "non-partisan".
Note that Mr. Barrett is a barrister specialising in financial and commercial law, rather than constitutional law. I would expect that many skills are transferable, so I don't mean here to dismiss his opinion based purely on his specialism (which would in any case be highly hypocritical of me); nevertheless, it may be useful to compare with other perspectives from those with more background in studying constitutional law. Here is specifically Sir Ernest's advice:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmprivi/632/report.html#heading-2
Here is the Office of Speaker's Counsel's comments:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmprivi/632/report.html#heading-3
And here is Mark Elliot's (Elliot is Professor of Public Law at Cambridge)
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2022/09/02/legal-opinion-on-the-privileges-committees-partygate-inquiry-some-comments/
It is those that we should be discussing, independently of who on this site first provides a link to them.
Finally, then: as Mr. Barrett himself said at several points in the video, it's important for barristers to be objective and to focus on facts. Why, then, was he not and did he not? By presenting only one side of the legal argument as if it were definitive, he failed to be objective; by omitting several key facts, he failed to focus on all the facts of the story; and, by refusing to engage with the alternative perspectives linked to above, those who uncritically promote the video are making the same errors.