Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2023 10:36:54 GMT
Johnson could be:
1. Asked to write an apology to the HoCs.
2. Suspended for less than 10 days.
3. Suspendered for more than 10 days.
If it's 1 or 2, should not all the fines to other people be repaid and any outstanding ones quashed because if the person making and explaining the rules to the common folk did not know the rules then how are we mere mortals supposed to know?
I am reminded of the person living on the street, fined over £400, The student fines £10,000.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 23, 2023 12:06:28 GMT
Harriet Harmon is determined to destroy any hope of Boris ever returning to politics. It's hardly a secret that she loathes him with a passion, indeed even before the committee proceedings have taken place and any evidence has been heard, she has stated he is guilty. A fact that Boris's lawyers will I'm sure be aware of. Do you believe he is innocent? No one is 'innocent', but Boris is no more guilty, a lot less guilty in many cases than thousands of people including Starmer. Why are Boris bashers so annoyed about cake, yet they think Starmers beer & curry night for 30 people is OK? And the 'fact' that Starmer and Raynor both initially lied about her being there was completely overlooked. It was months later when Raynor changed her mind and finally admitted that she did attend Starmer's beer & curry night. But again, no biggie. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 23, 2023 12:50:43 GMT
Do you believe he is innocent? No one is 'innocent', but Boris is no more guilty, a lot less guilty in many cases than thousands of people including Starmer. Why are Boris bashers so annoyed about cake, yet they think Starmers beer & curry night for 30 people is OK? And the 'fact' that Starmer and Raynor both initially lied about her being there was completely overlooked. It was months later when Raynor changed her mind and finally admitted that she did attend Starmer's beer & curry night. But again, no biggie. Loving the new avatar mate... |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 23, 2023 13:11:39 GMT
No one is 'innocent', but Boris is no more guilty, a lot less guilty in many cases than thousands of people including Starmer. Why are Boris bashers so annoyed about cake, yet they think Starmers beer & curry night for 30 people is OK? And the 'fact' that Starmer and Raynor both initially lied about her being there was completely overlooked. It was months later when Raynor changed her mind and finally admitted that she did attend Starmer's beer & curry night. But again, no biggie. Loving the new avatar mate... LOL, cheers Jonksy.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2023 13:37:08 GMT
Do you believe he is innocent? No one is 'innocent', but Boris is no more guilty, a lot less guilty in many cases than thousands of people including Starmer. Why are Boris bashers so annoyed about cake, yet they think Starmers beer & curry night for 30 people is OK? And the 'fact' that Starmer and Raynor both initially lied about her being there was completely overlooked. It was months later when Raynor changed her mind and finally admitted that she did attend Starmer's beer & curry night. But again, no biggie. Even if Starmer is guilty as sin in the context of Johnson giving evidence to the committee it is because he lied about it and not necessarily that he did it. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 23, 2023 13:42:37 GMT
No one is 'innocent', but Boris is no more guilty, a lot less guilty in many cases than thousands of people including Starmer. Why are Boris bashers so annoyed about cake, yet they think Starmers beer & curry night for 30 people is OK? And the 'fact' that Starmer and Raynor both initially lied about her being there was completely overlooked. It was months later when Raynor changed her mind and finally admitted that she did attend Starmer's beer & curry night. But again, no biggie. Even if Starmer is guilty as sin in the context of Johnson giving evidence to the committee it is because he lied about it and not necessarily that he did it. Ah right, that's OK then. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 23, 2023 14:27:46 GMT
Do you believe he is innocent? No one is 'innocent', but Boris is no more guilty, a lot less guilty in many cases than thousands of people including Starmer. Why are Boris bashers so annoyed about cake, yet they think Starmers beer & curry night for 30 people is OK? And the 'fact' that Starmer and Raynor both initially lied about her being there was completely overlooked. It was months later when Raynor changed her mind and finally admitted that she did attend Starmer's beer & curry night. But again, no biggie. Starmer, Blair, Paterson, etc, were not investigated at this hearing.
The Commons Privileges Committee was investigating the charge that Johnson knowingly lied to the commons about gatherings at No10. Every time Johnson was tackled about what was the truth and asked about inconsistencies in his evidence, he waffled and wandered off into irrelevant excuses.
Once the majority Conservative Committee has deliberated and studied further evidence, their findings will be announced in a report. The Commons will debate the report and decide whether to accept or reject it.
For my sins, I watched the Parliament channel re-run, and I've also read the Mail's report. Could the Parliament channel have severely edited its re-run?
Johnson was rattled. He didn't perform well because he wasn't allowed to do his usual tousle-haired deflecting act.
I admit, I hope he goes, not just for this, but for his whole lying demeanour — not least in lying to the Queen. However, it wouldn't surprise me to find that he has corrupted the Tory party to the extent that he gets away with this...
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 23, 2023 14:38:08 GMT
No one is 'innocent', but Boris is no more guilty, a lot less guilty in many cases than thousands of people including Starmer. Why are Boris bashers so annoyed about cake, yet they think Starmers beer & curry night for 30 people is OK? And the 'fact' that Starmer and Raynor both initially lied about her being there was completely overlooked. It was months later when Raynor changed her mind and finally admitted that she did attend Starmer's beer & curry night. But again, no biggie. Starmer, Blair, Paterson, etc, were not investigated at this hearing.
The Commons Privileges Committee was investigating the charge that Johnson knowingly lied to the commons about gatherings at No10. Every time Johnson was tackled about what was the truth and asked about inconsistencies in his evidence, he waffled and wandered off into irrelevant excuses.
Once the majority Conservative Committee has deliberated and studied further evidence, their findings will be announced in a report. The Commons will debate the report and decide whether to accept or reject it.
For my sins, I watched the Parliament channel re-run, and I've also read the Mail's report. Could the Parliament channel have severely edited its re-run?
Johnson was rattled. He didn't perform well because he wasn't allowed to do his usual tousle-haired deflecting act.
I admit, I hope he goes, not just for this, but for his whole lying demeanour — not least in lying to the Queen. However, it wouldn't surprise me to find that he has corrupted the Tory party to the extent that he gets away with this... Whether you think Boris performed well or not, will depend whether you're a lefty Boris basher, or not. And on that front, you have firmly nailed your colours to the mast. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 23, 2023 14:55:24 GMT
Is that all you've got?
The Committee is made up of four Conservatives, two Labour and one SNP. Staunch Brexiteer, Bernard Jenkin was polite and calm, but direct and incisive in his questionning. The other three Tories were also polite and firm. Harriet Harmon, KC, who chaired the committee calmly kept the hearing on track.
Unsure what to expect, I noted there was no inkling of support for Johnson from the four Tories, and no display of animosity from the others...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2023 18:25:49 GMT
I notice he was made to or requested to swear on the bible that he would tell the truth. How far down have we gone when the most, once, most senior person in the country either volunteers or is asked to only tell the truth, should that not be a given?
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 23, 2023 19:37:01 GMT
Was that unusual?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2023 19:56:19 GMT
Not unusual but not mandatory, he was of course the PM of this country and you would expect that the committee would be confident he would tell the truth without the need to resorting to swearing on oath, that is they required him to. If Johnson proposed that he swear the oath then he obviously knew that the committee had no confidence in him telling the truth and attempted to gaslight them. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 24, 2023 9:57:03 GMT
Not unusual but not mandatory, he was of course the PM of this country and you would expect that the committee would be confident he would tell the truth without the need to resorting to swearing on oath, that is they required him to. If Johnson proposed that he swear the oath then he obviously knew that the committee had no confidence in him telling the truth and attempted to gaslight them. Johnson is under investigation suspected of wilfully lying to the House of Commons it is not uncommon for people to be made to swear on oath to tell the truth either on the Bible or other Religious Text depending on the person faith or Affirm if you have no faith at all. The Dispatch Boxes in the Commons in front of the PM and Leader of the opposition contain religious texts for members to take the other when they become PM's for that very reason. If you give evidence to a tribunal a Court of Law or investigation as this is or you are the accused and give evidence to defend yourself you are asked to take the oath or affirm swearing you will tell the truth, as for what Johnson was thinking I hate to tell you this as it will go over your head you cannot read his mind, in fact when it comes to your mind it does not work well at all you prove that every time you post absolute bollocks day in day out. IMHO Johnsons fate was sealed before Johnson he entered the room, a Kangaroo Court just going through the motions |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2023 10:21:16 GMT
Not unusual but not mandatory, he was of course the PM of this country and you would expect that the committee would be confident he would tell the truth without the need to resorting to swearing on oath, that is they required him to. If Johnson proposed that he swear the oath then he obviously knew that the committee had no confidence in him telling the truth and attempted to gaslight them. Johnson is under investigation suspected of wilfully lying to the House of Commons it is not uncommon for people to be made to swear on oath to tell the truth either on the Bible or other Religious Text depending on the person faith or Affirm if you have no faith at all. The Dispatch Boxes in the Commons in front of the PM and Leader of the opposition contain religious texts for members to take the other when they become PM's for that very reason. If you give evidence to a tribunal a Court of Law or investigation as this is or you are the accused and give evidence to defend yourself you are asked to take the oath or affirm swearing you will tell the truth, as for what Johnson was thinking I hate to tell you this as it will go over your head you cannot read his mind, in fact when it comes to your mind it does not work well at all you prove that every time you post absolute bollocks day in day out. IMHO Johnsons fate was sealed before Johnson he entered the room, a Kangaroo Court just going through the motions I agree, but I do find it odd that a former PM was either requested to or offered to take the oath. It is a criminal offence to lie to a parliamentary committee with severe penalties for doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 24, 2023 12:39:10 GMT
Johnson is under investigation suspected of wilfully lying to the House of Commons it is not uncommon for people to be made to swear on oath to tell the truth either on the Bible or other Religious Text depending on the person faith or Affirm if you have no faith at all. The Dispatch Boxes in the Commons in front of the PM and Leader of the opposition contain religious texts for members to take the other when they become PM's for that very reason. If you give evidence to a tribunal a Court of Law or investigation as this is or you are the accused and give evidence to defend yourself you are asked to take the oath or affirm swearing you will tell the truth, as for what Johnson was thinking I hate to tell you this as it will go over your head you cannot read his mind, in fact when it comes to your mind it does not work well at all you prove that every time you post absolute bollocks day in day out. IMHO Johnsons fate was sealed before Johnson he entered the room, a Kangaroo Court just going through the motions I agree, but I do find it odd that a former PM was either requested to or offered to take the oath. It is a criminal offence to lie to a parliamentary committee with severe penalties for doing so. It is not a Criminal Offence to mislead the House of Commons intentionally or unintentionally it is more a case of Contempt for the House, if found in Contempt the member is expected to resign , or can be suspended by the House for up to 10 days, if longer than that they lose their seat and a by election is called. |
|
