Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2023 11:14:44 GMT
Come on, who are you trying to kid here? Did you even listen to the debate? Examples of Johnson lying, admitting subsequently that what he said was not the truth, but then going on to say it again repeatedly anyway when the facts themselves were demonstrably untrue. Every non-deluded person knew he was a liar before he even got the job. Sacked by a newspaper for inventing quotes. Sacked by a former Tory leader for lying about an affair. And repeatedly lying at the despatch box. If you cannot see him for what he is you must be blind and deaf. I listened to some of it, to be honest it got a bit repetitive, it was Boris bashers doing what Boris bashers do. You talk of facts, but are you aware that eminent lawyer Lord Pannick KC said the privileges committee report has not proved Boris Johnsons guilt and the findings of the committee would be ruled unlawful in a court of law. Boris was proven guilty several times, firstly by The Metropolitan Police who fined him, and secondly the cabinet office report concluded that he was guilty. Several photographs also prove he was guilty, at least one video proves he was guilty, numerous eye witness accounts describe in detail the partys, Christmas quiz and booze-ups, a Panorama investigation interviewed witnesses. Security staff complained at the lack of respect after they had suggested / advised that one party was breaking the rules, and that they should take the party outside. But finaly, it was not the job, or within the remit of The Priviliges Committee to prove, or not prove Johnsons guilt, that has already been done. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 20, 2023 11:17:04 GMT
I listened to some of it, to be honest it got a bit repetitive, it was Boris bashers doing what Boris bashers do. You talk of facts, but are you aware that eminent lawyer Lord Pannick KC said the privileges committee report has not proved Boris Johnsons guilt and the findings of the committee would be ruled unlawful in a court of law. Boris was proven guilty several times, firstly by The Metropolitan Police who fined him, and secondly the cabinet office report concluded that he was guilty. Several photographs also prove he was guilty, at least one video proves he was guilty, numerous eye witness accounts describe in detail the partys, Christmas quiz and booze-ups, a Panorama investigation interviewed witnesses. Security staff complained at the lack of respect after they had suggested / advised that one party was breaking the rules, and that they should take the party outside. But finaly, it was not the job, or within the remit of The Priviliges Committee to prove, or not prove Johnsons guilt, that has already been done. I say again: Eminent lawyer Lord Pannick KC said the privileges committee report has not proved Boris Johnsons guilt and the findings of the committee would be ruled unlawful in a court of law |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2023 11:24:46 GMT
Boris was proven guilty several times, firstly by The Metropolitan Police who fined him, and secondly the cabinet office report concluded that he was guilty. Several photographs also prove he was guilty, at least one video proves he was guilty, numerous eye witness accounts describe in detail the partys, Christmas quiz and booze-ups, a Panorama investigation interviewed witnesses. Security staff complained at the lack of respect after they had suggested / advised that one party was breaking the rules, and that they should take the party outside. But finaly, it was not the job, or within the remit of The Priviliges Committee to prove, or not prove Johnsons guilt, that has already been done. I say again: Eminent lawyer Lord Pannick KC said the privileges committee report has not proved Boris Johnsons guilt and the findings of the committee would be ruled unlawful in a court of lawSo are you indicating or suggesting that Boris could be not guilty ? After the Metropolitan Police interviewed dozens of witnesses, took statements, and then found Johnson guilty and issued him with a fine. Are you pushing back on the videos, photographs, witness accounts, the security staff who complained, and the cleaners who complained at the lack of respect. ? I mean, just what would it take for some people to accept that Johnson broke the law, lied about it and then missled Parliament. ? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 20, 2023 11:32:59 GMT
I say again: Eminent lawyer Lord Pannick KC said the privileges committee report has not proved Boris Johnsons guilt and the findings of the committee would be ruled unlawful in a court of lawSo are you indicating or suggesting that Boris could be not guilty ? After the Metropolitan Police interviewed dozens of witnesses, took statements, and then found Johnson guilty and issued him with a fine. Are you pushing back on the videos, photographs, witness accounts, the security staff who complained, and the cleaners who complained at the lack of respect. ? I mean, just what would it take for some people to accept that Johnson broke the law, lied about it and then missled Parliament. ? Not being a lawyer eminent or otherwise I am not indicating or suggesting anything. However, I am repeating what eminent lawyer Lord Pannick KC said, which was... ...'the privileges committee report has not proved Boris Johnsons guilt and the findings of the committee would be ruled unlawful in a court of law'. If you think he is wrong I suggest you take it up with him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2023 11:55:35 GMT
Blimey, are the corrupt commies still derailing threads and bashing Boris over eating cake and not intentionally breaking any playground rules? Desperate times I say. We've had two Prime Ministers since Boris.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2023 11:58:21 GMT
Come on, who are you trying to kid here? Did you even listen to the debate? Examples of Johnson lying, admitting subsequently that what he said was not the truth, but then going on to say it again repeatedly anyway when the facts themselves were demonstrably untrue. Every non-deluded person knew he was a liar before he even got the job. Sacked by a newspaper for inventing quotes. Sacked by a former Tory leader for lying about an affair. And repeatedly lying at the despatch box. If you cannot see him for what he is you must be blind and deaf. I listened to some of it, to be honest it got a bit repetitive, it was Boris bashers doing what Boris bashers do. You talk of facts, but are you aware that eminent lawyer Lord Pannick KC said the privileges committee report has not proved Boris Johnsons guilt and the findings of the committee would be ruled unlawful in a court of law. That has more than been countered...... committees.parliament.uk/committee/289/committee-of-privileges/news/173268/privileges-committee-comments-on-legal-opinion/In case you cannot be bothered to look, here are some of the most relevant points... "The Committee rejects Lord Pannick’s criticisms. It notes that it has received clear, impartial and unambiguous advice from the Clerks of the House, the Office of Speaker’s Counsel, and its own legal adviser Rt Hon Sir Ernest Ryder, former President of Tribunals in the UK and Lord Justice of Appeal. The Committee accepts the view of its impartial legal advisers and the Clerks that Lord Pannick’s opinion is founded on a systemic misunderstanding of the parliamentary process and misplaced analogies with the criminal law." And for crying out loud man are you wilfully deaf and blind? That the overpromoted buffoon has been telling lie after lie ought to have been obvious to anyone who has been listening. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2023 12:00:19 GMT
Blimey, are the corrupt commies still derailing threads and bashing Boris over eating cake and not intentionally breaking any playground rules? Desperate times I say. We've had two Prime Ministers since Boris. Another prat who cannot see what is obvious to the rest of us. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 20, 2023 12:00:59 GMT
Blimey, are the corrupt commies still derailing threads and bashing Boris over eating cake and not intentionally breaking any playground rules? Desperate times I say. We've had two Prime Ministers since Boris. Don't you think it's a tad rich mate when a lefty remant lectures others on democracy and law? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2023 12:05:13 GMT
Blimey, are the corrupt commies still derailing threads and bashing Boris over eating cake and not intentionally breaking any playground rules? Desperate times I say. We've had two Prime Ministers since Boris. Don't you think it's a tad rich mate when a lefty remant lectures others on democracy and law? Extremely, but I don't pay much attention to their dishonest spamming and sleaze. I think many are still incredibly bitter because Boris beat Jihadi Corbyn. They will lick Starmer's crack even though Starmer chained Corbyn to Labour's naughty stool and barred him for speaking. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2023 12:05:40 GMT
Blimey, are the corrupt commies still derailing threads and bashing Boris over eating cake and not intentionally breaking any playground rules? Desperate times I say. We've had two Prime Ministers since Boris. Don't you think it's a tad rich mate when a lefty remant lectures others on democracy and law? Well it is highly comical watching you trying to do so. Your relationship with reality and facts is something akin to that of a flat earther. Your ability to see what is obvious with your very own eyes seems so dysfunctional that you probably need a guide dog. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 20, 2023 12:06:54 GMT
We are just gletting them get away with it because we have an election every 5 years, where they make promises, in between times they do as they like. Maybe 5 years is too long. The country already suffers from short-termism with five years. This tends to encourage administrations to concentrate on the quicker bits of legislation they can use as selling points at the next election. Fixed term wasn’t given a long-enough trial. Attempting more complicated legislation, and having to campaign with unfinished business doesn’t appeal to MPs worried about their seats… Oh no. I profoundly disagree. Fixed Term Parliaments delivered the zombification of government, a mockery in which a prime minister duped by spads into holding an election that pissed much of her valuable majority up the wall was then stonewalled by a speaker disgracefully aiding and abetting the opposition to paralyse government whilst denying them the time honoured way out, the prime ministerial right to go to the sovereign who appointed them as their majesty’s Prime Minster and declare cinditions made it impossible to do the job and parliament should be dissolved. Never again can arrogant bastards with no hope of power in their own right be allowed to fuck the country over and then run away as Clegg was. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 20, 2023 12:07:59 GMT
Don't you think it's a tad rich mate when a lefty remant lectures others on democracy and law? Well it is highly comical watching you trying to do so. Your relationship with reality and facts is something akin to that of a flat earther. Your ability to see what is obvious with your very own eyes seems so dysfunctional that you probably need a guide dog. Oh the irony adolf... |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 20, 2023 12:08:43 GMT
I listened to some of it, to be honest it got a bit repetitive, it was Boris bashers doing what Boris bashers do. You talk of facts, but are you aware that eminent lawyer Lord Pannick KC said the privileges committee report has not proved Boris Johnsons guilt and the findings of the committee would be ruled unlawful in a court of law. Boris was proven guilty several times, firstly by The Metropolitan Police who fined him, and secondly the cabinet office report concluded that he was guilty. Several photographs also prove he was guilty, at least one video proves he was guilty, numerous eye witness accounts describe in detail the partys, Christmas quiz and booze-ups, a Panorama investigation interviewed witnesses. Security staff complained at the lack of respect after they had suggested / advised that one party was breaking the rules, and that they should take the party outside. But finaly, it was not the job, or within the remit of The Priviliges Committee to prove, or not prove Johnsons guilt, that has already been done. Bollocks. The police do NOT "prove people guilty". They charge them. Boris - and Sunak - decided to accept the charge and pay the FPN of about £100 I think. In retrospect I think Boris made a mistake in paying the fine. He should have gone to court where he would have been found not guilty. He just didn't realise what the long term consequences of the FPN were - for him anyway. Sunak's similar fine has done him no harm but then he's keeping us aligned us to the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 20, 2023 12:11:34 GMT
I listened to some of it, to be honest it got a bit repetitive, it was Boris bashers doing what Boris bashers do. You talk of facts, but are you aware that eminent lawyer Lord Pannick KC said the privileges committee report has not proved Boris Johnsons guilt and the findings of the committee would be ruled unlawful in a court of law. That has more than been countered...... committees.parliament.uk/committee/289/committee-of-privileges/news/173268/privileges-committee-comments-on-legal-opinion/In case you cannot be bothered to look, here are some of the most relevant points... "The Committee rejects Lord Pannick’s criticisms. It notes that it has received clear, impartial and unambiguous advice from the Clerks of the House, the Office of Speaker’s Counsel, and its own legal adviser Rt Hon Sir Ernest Ryder, former President of Tribunals in the UK and Lord Justice of Appeal. The Committee accepts the view of its impartial legal advisers and the Clerks that Lord Pannick’s opinion is founded on a systemic misunderstanding of the parliamentary process and misplaced analogies with the criminal law." And for crying out loud man are you wilfully deaf and blind? That the overpromoted buffoon has been telling lie after lie ought to have been obvious to anyone who has been listening. so those ‘impartial legal advisers’ are basically saying the Lord Pannick’s observations that the case would not stand in a court of law are invalid NOT because his observations are wring but because the commons is above the law ? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 20, 2023 12:13:57 GMT
I listened to some of it, to be honest it got a bit repetitive, it was Boris bashers doing what Boris bashers do. You talk of facts, but are you aware that eminent lawyer Lord Pannick KC said the privileges committee report has not proved Boris Johnsons guilt and the findings of the committee would be ruled unlawful in a court of law. That has more than been countered...... committees.parliament.uk/committee/289/committee-of-privileges/news/173268/privileges-committee-comments-on-legal-opinion/In case you cannot be bothered to look, here are some of the most relevant points... "The Committee rejects Lord Pannick’s criticisms. It notes that it has received clear, impartial and unambiguous advice from the Clerks of the House, the Office of Speaker’s Counsel, and its own legal adviser Rt Hon Sir Ernest Ryder, former President of Tribunals in the UK and Lord Justice of Appeal. The Committee accepts the view of its impartial legal advisers and the Clerks that Lord Pannick’s opinion is founded on a systemic misunderstanding of the parliamentary process and misplaced analogies with the criminal law." And for crying out loud man are you wilfully deaf and blind? That the overpromoted buffoon has been telling lie after lie ought to have been obvious to anyone who has been listening. Seriously? Of course the committee rejects eminent lawyer Lord Pannicks criticisms, ffs did you really expect them to agree with him? |
|
