for 90 days had he not resigned. tbh, I am not surprised but it is a mucky game in politics and there will be more dirt-throwing, no doubt. The world still spins ;)
//i honestly dom't know what his cringeing followers want.// Ah, if all else fails name call. It seems quite clear from the posts above: An impartial set of Judges with the Chair in particular being impartial. And what is wrong with that?
the rules of the house of commons are enforced by members of the house of commons... almost none of whom are impartial by definition
the important thing is whether or not the committee conducted its actual investigation in a manner that was unfair or unethical regardless of what their political positions were... you cannot provide any examples of them doing this because they did not in fact do it
Her appointment was controversial from the beginning and with good reason. It shouldn’t have been acceptable to anyone but with the outcome predictable, it suited those who wanted him gone. And they bang on about honesty. A joke surely.
// [Harman's] appointment was controversial from the beginning and with good reason. //
Not really -- it was supported by the whole House at the time (and, incidentally, when Johnson was still Prime Minister) without division. It's only become "controversial" since because it suits Johnson and his supporters to try to undermine the credibility of the report. And that's the only thing they *can* do, clearly, since *still* you haven't addressed any of the substance of the report.
ClareTG0ld, as someone who, in an effort to argue against accepting and respecting the result of the EU referendum, told me, quite bizarrely, that democracy doesn’t mean what I think it means, you really would be better placed talking to someone for whom your deliberations on these topics retain a modicum of credibility.
still not a single example from naomi to demonstrate that the actual investigation itself was carried out in an unethical or unfair way... nor a single example from the committee's report where this bias is strongly in evidence
Incidentally, ClareTG0ld, you are mistaken. The Chair’s appointment caused controversy before her bottom hit the seat. I’m sure you’ll find reference to it if you want to.
Untitled, I don’t give credence to people with spiteful agendas so you may as well stop waiting - and asking - for my comments on the report. As I said the whole thing stinks.
Since you -- bizarrely -- commented that you wouldn't even bother to read a report before dismissing it, then you really would be better placed talking to someone for whom your deliberations on these topics retain a modicum of credibility. :)
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.