Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2023 12:23:41 GMT
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? They had their own legal advice, quite a lot of it, or didn't you notice? Besides which a parliamentary committee is not the same thing as a criminal court of law. So saying what would or would not stand in a criminal court of law - which is in any case unknowable without the involvement of a jury - is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 20, 2023 12:36:35 GMT
Seriously? Of course the committee rejects eminent lawyer Lord Pannicks criticisms, ffs did you really expect them to agree with him? They had their own legal advice, quite a lot of it, or didn't you notice? Besides which a parliamentary committee is not the same thing as a criminal court of law. So saying what would or would not stand in a criminal court of law - which is in any case unknowable without the involvement of a jury - is irrelevant. Since you insist on consistently missing the point the only irrelevance seems to be your input. Your comments do not alter the fact that eminent lawyer Lord Pannick KC says the committee has not proved Boris's guilt and the findings of the committee would be unlawful in a court of law. It was always patently obvious the committee would reject any criticism, that does not diminish the fact that criticism of the committees findings, from a very eminent lawyer, has been made. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2023 13:17:40 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. 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. The Metropolitan Police decided to fine Boris Johnson after they conducted interviews with all the people who were present at the partys. The police took witness statements. Witness Statements MUST contain the following ... Start with the name of the case and the claim number; State the full name and address of the witness; Set out the witness's evidence clearly in numbered paragraphs on numbered pages; End with this paragraph: 'I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.' and be signed by the witness and dated. Yet you say that Boris Johnson is not guilty ? REALLY |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 20, 2023 13:44:55 GMT
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. The Metropolitan Police decided to fine Boris Johnson after they conducted interviews with all the people who were present at the partys. The police took witness statements. Witness Statements MUST contain the following ... Start with the name of the case and the claim number; State the full name and address of the witness; Set out the witness's evidence clearly in numbered paragraphs on numbered pages; End with this paragraph: 'I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.' and be signed by the witness and dated. Yet you say that Boris Johnson is not guilty ? REALLY The police are not judge and jury you thicko. All they an do is charge people - unless the victim agrees to an FPN it goes to court. Like I said Boris should have never accepted the FPN. I don't think he understood how much trouble the FPN would cause. Funnily enough Sunak who was convicted for the exact same offence seems to have got off scot-free. I Wonder why. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2023 13:45:16 GMT
Two speakers against the report who really impressed me with their reasoning was Rees-Mogg who I think really saw the committee as more of a hanging judge. He said this in part of his speech - from Hansard yesterday
...Let us start with paragraph 48, which makes reference to the fixed penalty notice received by Mr Johnson for the birthday party. It seems to think that the fixed penalty notice is, in fact, an admission of guilt. But in R v. Hamer, Lord Chief Justice Thomas said:
“It is quite clear that the issue of a notice is not a conviction. It is not an admission of guilt nor any proof that a crime has been committed. The scheme of the Act makes that clear. Any person reading the form would plainly understand that it is not to be regarded as a conviction and will not be held against him save in the respect mentioned. It seems therefore clear, both as a matter of the statutory scheme and as a matter of what a person accepting such a notice would reasonably be led to believe, that he was not admitting any offence, not admitting any criminality, and would not have any stain imputed to his character.”
Yet this report, against what a Lord Chief Justice says and against what is a principle of our criminal law, decides to impute a stain upon his character. It seems to me that this is quite clearly a deliberate attempt to take the most unfavourable interpretation of Mr Johnson’s activities, but this is not the only contentious paragraph.
Let us go to paragraph 83, which decides, as if it were an Elon Musk chip, to insert itself in the brain of Mr Johnson to work out what he must have thought at a Toggle showing location of Column 615 particular moment. Well, I am glad to say that, as far as I am aware, Mr Johnson does not have one of these little chips stuck in his brain for the Committee’s benefit. Paragraph 83 says
“we conclude that Mr Johnson is unlikely to have been unaware”.
That is an obscure use of a double negative to try to impute malfeasance to somebody where the Committee cannot prove it. The Committee assumes something and imputes something because it wants to come to a particular conclusion...
Since the fixed penalty has been mentioned in this thread earlier I felt this was relevant.
The other was Bill Cash who in his usual dour manner went to great lengths to point out that the report refers to Boris 'misleading' the House when in fact the Committee's remit was whether he 'knowingly mislead' it. He insisted that this radically changed the potential outcome of the findings. Again it is recorded in full in Hansard. I really don't feel that this was a cut and dried decision but the result was engineered from the get go for all their bluster about having put in so much work. It seems to me that so much work was needed in an effort to give the outcome they wanted at the start.
Boris Johnson had faults but in this he has every right to feel cheated.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 20, 2023 14:21:39 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 lawLord Pannick KC not doubt explored every escape route for his client, and voicing his opinion if it helps is as it should be. Nevertheless, if Johnson had unintentionally mislead or got a fact wrong, he had plenty of opportunity to go through the House of Commons processes to correct the record. He does not appear to have done this. Plus, he also attempted to usurp the authority of Parliament and its official bodies by releasing confidential material and issuing more untruthful material to combat it… |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 20, 2023 14:25:32 GMT
Boris Johnson had faults but in this he has every right to feel cheated. If so, he is experiencing what many others are now feeling after having gone through the shambles and dishonesty of his premiership… |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 20, 2023 14:39:37 GMT
Boris Johnson had faults but in this he has every right to feel cheated. If so, he is experiencing what many others are now feeling after having gone through the shambles and dishonesty of his premiership… How many of these so called others are earning the money that Borris commands now? If you want to place the blame of the shambles of covid you could do a lot worse than start doing some research on our shambles known as the NHS. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2023 15:36:00 GMT
Boris never was a team player but he has an astute and clever mind which Parliament in their jealous short sightedness fail to see a use for. It will be the Nation's loss to see this man's chutzpah and ability to see beyond the here and now banned from their midst. See his efforts in raising awareness and support for Ukraine. He apparently had little real wish to shut the country down during Covid but 'the Scientists' had everyone by the collar, and if I remember right Starmer wanted more strict shut down for even longer with far more money printed to cover it. Where might we be now if he led the way? It was difficult to find a right way - either way many were expected to suffer or die. The NHS front line were brave indeed but their leaders were more inefficient than can be imagined and still haven't been called to account. Let's hope that will soon be rectified.
I feel sorry for Teresa May if only that she wanted the role of PM for a long time to only arrive there and find she is no leader, but then again she had the hardest job of all with a parliament that couldn't find a democratic bone in it's body and a Speaker who compounded that failing. It's unfortunate that she too lowered herself to rail against him thus joining the rabble on the opposition benches who really just want a clear run at the next General Election and see Boris as too much of a vote winner. Boris can lead with vision and foresight but is really only good in a crisis. The mediocrity of the current Parliament let's us all down. Rishi has returned us to mediocrity with a remain Chancellor hell bent on proving the reason for re-entry into the EU. Frankly I despair of them all, they have done themselves no favours but it will be interesting to see just what the turn out will be at the by-elections created by this fiasco. How many have been turned off politics altogether? Parliament has only itself to blame, but then perhaps they see redemption in very few voters. It raises their odds perhaps of holding on to their jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jun 20, 2023 15:40:33 GMT
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. The Metropolitan Police decided to fine Boris Johnson after they conducted interviews with all the people who were present at the partys. The police took witness statements. Witness Statements MUST contain the following ... Start with the name of the case and the claim number; State the full name and address of the witness; Set out the witness's evidence clearly in numbered paragraphs on numbered pages; End with this paragraph: 'I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.' and be signed by the witness and dated. Yet you say that Boris Johnson is not guilty ? REALLY Fixed Penalty Notices are used to deal with Non Recordable Offence by Police or other designated Enforcement Officers normally on the spot as the issuing person has witnessed the offence , Breach of Traffic Regulations , Littering etc , and when they were in Force suspected Breaches of Covid Regulations, the Person then Cautions you and they note any reply if one is given , and makes a short record of what they have witnessed. Who ever receives an FPN decides later what they wish to do either pays the Fee and accepts the Fine, or can request that the matter is dealt with in Court As far as I am aware the person or persons who released the Photographs taken in No 10 did so anonymously, The Met Police were tasked with Investigating 12 suspected breaches of Covid Regulations within No 10 which is basically full of Offices , Meeting Rooms and the PM of the day flat and a large garden at the rear, even in the time of Covid lots of members of staff were working, Minsters and MP's also came and went as it was essential that they had to carry on work as usual , same as other essential workers across the UK did Boris was not interviewed by Police but sent a Questionnaire with the Caution attached to it, as far as I am aware so was everyone else who had been identified as being present and suspected of an offence, did Police take witness statements for anyone who had witnessed the breaches of the Covid Regulations ? I don't know not see any mention of it in the Press, personally I think very unlikely anyone working in No10 would, they would be very unpopular with their workmates to say the least You are correct Police Witness Statements are made in a set manner name date of birth, address , usually on the back of the last page for privacy reasons if they are called to give evidence in a case, On the front page a Witness Statement Age of witness (if over 18, enter “over 18”): …………………. This statement (consisting of pages) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false, or do not believe to be true. Once complete they sign and date every page, on the last page the Witness signs and dates the last word , in order that nothing can be added by anyone later 126 FPN's were issued to No 10 one to Boris, his wife ,Carrie and Sunak , did they fill in the Police Questionaries I do not know , or did they just accept the FPN and pay the fine it would appear so, the other 123 were issued to members of staff Civil Servants etc, I don't recall reading in the press if any of them challenged their FPN in Court either. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 20, 2023 15:47:42 GMT
OMG, apparently because members of the privileges committee are offended dare I say outraged at the way some people, Lord Pannick and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg to name but two, are criticising them, I just heard there is going to be an inquiry into the inquiry!
|
|
|
|
Post by distant on Jun 20, 2023 17:20:44 GMT
OMG, apparently because members of the privileges committee are offended dare I say outraged at the way some people, Lord Pannick and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg to name but two, are criticising them, I just heard there is going to be an inquiry into the inquiry! The taxpayer had to stump up £245,000 legal fees for Johnson's defence. I wonder how much of that money went to Pannick. Lawyers will say anything in your defence if you pay them enough, or in this case if the taxpayer pays them enough. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 20, 2023 17:25:02 GMT
OMG, apparently because members of the privileges committee are offended dare I say outraged at the way some people, Lord Pannick and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg to name but two, are criticising them, I just heard there is going to be an inquiry into the inquiry! The taxpayer had to stump up £245,000 legal fees for Johnson's defence. I wonder how much of that money went to Pannick. Lawyers will say anything in your defence if you pay them enough, or in this case if the taxpayer pays them enough. When the fuck have labour ever worried about pissing taxpayers money up the wall? Just asking for a friend of course.. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 20, 2023 17:32:14 GMT
OMG, apparently because members of the privileges committee are offended dare I say outraged at the way some people, Lord Pannick and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg to name but two, are criticising them, I just heard there is going to be an inquiry into the inquiry! The taxpayer had to stump up £245,000 legal fees for Johnson's defence. I wonder how much of that money went to Pannick. Lawyers will say anything in your defence if you pay them enough, or in this case if the taxpayer pays them enough. I imagine Lord Pannick KC was very well remunerated for his efforts. Not that I'm defending lawyers, in my experience they're almost as hated as estate agents. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 20, 2023 17:41:09 GMT
The taxpayer had to stump up £245,000 legal fees for Johnson's defence. I wonder how much of that money went to Pannick. Lawyers will say anything in your defence if you pay them enough, or in this case if the taxpayer pays them enough. When the fuck have labour ever worried about pissing taxpayers money up the wall? Just asking for a friend of course.. To be fair, that's a very fair question. |
|
