News1 min ago
Boris Would Have Been Suspended...
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 ;)
Answers
//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?
11:22 Thu 15th Jun 2023
Yes, it should have been JRM, Michael Fabricant, Nadine Dorries and Brendan Clarke-Smith on the committee, that would have been much fairer. We got the wrong Tories, Gromit, the wrong Tories!
Or we could take Chris Bryant's comment @14:53:
https:/
Referring to attacks on the suitability of chair Harriet Harman and Sir Bernard Jenkin to sit on the committee, Sir Chris pointed out the committee’s verdict was “unanimous…even if you were to take those two members out of the committee you would still have all of the other five coming to the same conclusions”.
He also pointed out that Johnson was prime minister when it was agreed for the committee to be set up with Harman as chair.
Or we could take Chris Bryant's comment @14:53:
https:/
Referring to attacks on the suitability of chair Harriet Harman and Sir Bernard Jenkin to sit on the committee, Sir Chris pointed out the committee’s verdict was “unanimous…even if you were to take those two members out of the committee you would still have all of the other five coming to the same conclusions”.
He also pointed out that Johnson was prime minister when it was agreed for the committee to be set up with Harman as chair.
The report is here
https:/
earlier on: it was a court they sat in judgement of him
no no no - absolute twaddle - yikes - read Ladybook guide to Courts Act 1981.
https:/
earlier on: it was a court they sat in judgement of him
no no no - absolute twaddle - yikes - read Ladybook guide to Courts Act 1981.
The difficulty for thos that havent read the Ladybird guide book is
article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689
`That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
select committee of privileges is one of them
you did all know this didnt you? Jesus
article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689
`That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
select committee of privileges is one of them
you did all know this didnt you? Jesus
Harman was objected to.....
no no no - the committee and inquiry was decided WITHOUT a vote
so no, there WASN'T an objection
and I agree with the opinion, that no con wd take up the poisoned chalice ( chairmanship).
Hahahaha Jacob R-M, soon to be SIR jacob, objected to one member. Talk about unbiassed objections by one Jacob R-M,
Carry on er lying ABers !
no no no - the committee and inquiry was decided WITHOUT a vote
so no, there WASN'T an objection
and I agree with the opinion, that no con wd take up the poisoned chalice ( chairmanship).
Hahahaha Jacob R-M, soon to be SIR jacob, objected to one member. Talk about unbiassed objections by one Jacob R-M,
Carry on er lying ABers !
ClareTG0ld, 16.48. That isn’t something I’ve said. You must be confusing me with someone else.
yes I think I confused you with a mad old bag lady who says one thing one day and the opposite the next. My apologies.
difference between sue gray and this report ( no reader there are NOT fifty shades of Grey = ter daah !)
have we sought to repeat the inquiry commissioned by Mr
Johnson from the then Second Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office (Sue Gray) into the conduct of individual Ministers and officials in No. 10. What the House mandated us to do was to investigate whether Mr Johnson told the truth to Parliament, to the best of his knowledge, about No. 10’s compliance with those Rules and Guidance
yes I agree with Clare Gold, that few posters here have read the report ( before blaarting - a bit like Boris really)
yes I think I confused you with a mad old bag lady who says one thing one day and the opposite the next. My apologies.
difference between sue gray and this report ( no reader there are NOT fifty shades of Grey = ter daah !)
have we sought to repeat the inquiry commissioned by Mr
Johnson from the then Second Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office (Sue Gray) into the conduct of individual Ministers and officials in No. 10. What the House mandated us to do was to investigate whether Mr Johnson told the truth to Parliament, to the best of his knowledge, about No. 10’s compliance with those Rules and Guidance
yes I agree with Clare Gold, that few posters here have read the report ( before blaarting - a bit like Boris really)
FPN ( fixed penalties) were issued
he has no idea why
and yes they were at parties which were within the rules
"I don’t know why the FPNs were issued, but it may be that they were issued to people who had not a good enough reason to come in from home to that gathering, or people who had come from elsewhere to that gathering. "
not surprisingy the committee found such statements from Boris.... incredz
(also disingenuous - pretending to know less than you do: synonyms deceitful, duplicitous, falso)
he has no idea why
and yes they were at parties which were within the rules
"I don’t know why the FPNs were issued, but it may be that they were issued to people who had not a good enough reason to come in from home to that gathering, or people who had come from elsewhere to that gathering. "
not surprisingy the committee found such statements from Boris.... incredz
(also disingenuous - pretending to know less than you do: synonyms deceitful, duplicitous, falso)
separation of powers - and art IX of the bill of rights ( parliamentary procedure shall not be impugned in the courts)
is discussed in R v Chaytor
3 Nardy MPs filled out fraudulent expenses and then said ' oh we cannot be prosecuted in the courts as we are separate a/c art IX 1689 Act
https:/
held - they cd be indicted as it didnt interfer with parliamentary free speech.
I was gonna do a bit on fairness and its review by impt bods in parliamentary ctees, but I must say I have lost the will to live. (Law Lords consulted gave an opinion that parliamentary procedure was fair ( enough))
is discussed in R v Chaytor
3 Nardy MPs filled out fraudulent expenses and then said ' oh we cannot be prosecuted in the courts as we are separate a/c art IX 1689 Act
https:/
held - they cd be indicted as it didnt interfer with parliamentary free speech.
I was gonna do a bit on fairness and its review by impt bods in parliamentary ctees, but I must say I have lost the will to live. (Law Lords consulted gave an opinion that parliamentary procedure was fair ( enough))
I don't much care which conservative members were on the committee, untitled. They're all politicians, they all can't be trusted to do more than look after their own interests, especially political career interests. One only has to look at their antics, both outside & inside the HoC, assuming one can be bothered any more. I know I can't, it's all just so depressing. But I saw months and months of BJ, and others who fought for our sovereignty, being abused and obstructed to know there's zero chance of an unbiased result from any such committee. Not even from, or maybe especially not from those who claimed to be Brexiteers but clearly don't act as such.
Latest Posts
More Thing Coming Out About Jay Slater
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
News6 mins ago
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.