|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 29, 2023 6:34:42 GMT
Of the privileges committee who seek to censure any who criticise their findings,how’s that for a privilege? Such things are usually reserved for religions as in the pope being infallible.
I looked on the gov website
Why are there two committees and shouldn’t there just be one on standards that has a equal number of lay members so as to ensure there is no bias?
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 29, 2023 7:09:44 GMT
Is there no end to the viciousness and vindictiveness of the Lefties who want to destroy Boris Johnson for the crime of delivering Brexit - which the people voted for?
The process by which Boris was put on trial for "misleading Parliament" was an utter disgrace. The chairwoman was a person who has publicly said that Boris misled Parliament, so she had already made her mind. At least one of the people on the committee (Bernard Jenkin) is also known to have broken lockdown rules in relation to a party for his wife. And all 4 of the "Tories" on the committee who were judging Boris are known to dislike him intensely. Boris had no right of appeal and was not allowed to know the names of his accusers. This is Kafkaesque as Boris said. To call this a kangaroo court is a slur on kangaroos.
And now these cowardly hypocrites are setting their sights on those who supported Johnson's criticism of the committee/court. The charge will be that they sought to undermine the committee's investigation and they're going to name and shame (and punish) those who were involved (e.g. JRM and Nadine Dories). Presumably those named and punished will also have no recourse to appeal.
It's staggering to me that this is a committee of people (MPs) who make the laws in our country. Yet this behaviour is more suited to a fascist dictatorship. IMO it's THEY who are bringing Parliament into disrepute.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 29, 2023 7:20:10 GMT
Is there no end to the viciousness and vindictiveness of the Lefties who want to destroy Boris Johnson for the crime of delivering Brexit - which the people voted for? The process by which Boris was put on trial for "misleading Parliament" was an utter disgrace. The chairwoman was a person who has publicly said that Boris misled Parliament, so she had already made her mind. At least one of the people on the committee (Bernard Jenkin) is also known to have broken lockdown rules in relation to a party for his wife. And all 4 of the "Tories" on the committee who were judging Boris are known to dislike him intensely. Boris had no right of appeal and was not allowed to know the names of his accusers. This is Kafkaesque as Boris said. To call this a kangaroo court is a slur on kangaroos. And now these cowardly hypocrites are setting their sights on those who supported Johnson's criticism of the committee/court. The charge will be that they sought to undermine the committee's investigation and they're going to name and shame (and punish) those who were involved (e.g. JRM and Nadine Dories). Presumably those named and punished will also have no recourse to appeal. It's staggering to me that this is a committee of people (MPs) who make the laws in our country. Yet this behaviour is more suited to a fascist dictatorship. IMO it's THEY who are bringing Parliament into disrepute. I think every country should have a member of PIE in their governments mate...Oh but on second thoughts... |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 29, 2023 7:34:54 GMT
Yes. There were quite a few Lefties who were members of the Paedophile Information Exchange some years ago. It's astonishing that they got away with it. But Harriet Harman is a very nasty bit of work.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 29, 2023 7:46:27 GMT
Yes. There were quite a few Lefties who were members of the Paedophile Information Exchange some years ago. It's astonishing that they got away with it. But Harriet Harman is a very nasty bit of work. And her husband is no better mate. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 29, 2023 8:03:41 GMT
The privileges committee is there to ensure the standards of the house are maintained. It is an important check and balance that defends democracy. It is manned by decent MPs from all parties committed to put party differences to one side and commit themselves to judge matters that come before them impartially.
Johnson was no respecter of checks and balances. He is like Trump a very unpleasant man with psychological disorders. He and his acolytes have no qualms in seeking to destroy checks and balances that threaten him. Sadly recent history has shown that there will be ordinary people in their silos who will believe what these acolytes say.
Legitimate criticism is fine. It would have been perfectly possible to say in calm measured language that a rational MP doesn't agree with the conclusions the committee has come to. But that of course is not what happened. Instead they used emotive language like witchhunt and kangaroo court to challenge the authority of the process and the integrity of the members who sit on it. Those members have had their personal reputations and safety of themselves and their family compromised all to protect the ego and ambitions of one man. Having seen what happens, who would now choose to put themselves forward to serve on this committee in future and as a result the workings of future committees has been compromised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2023 8:40:57 GMT
The Tories voted to investigate partygate, agreed the makeup of the committee and agreed with the outcome.
People like Mogg, Dorries, Patel....... should be held to account for their intimidatory tactics in trying to influence the outcome.
Democratic processes are fine for the right wing unless they involve 'punishing' one of their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 29, 2023 9:42:12 GMT
The Tories voted to investigate partygate, agreed the makeup of the committee and agreed with the outcome. People like Mogg, Dorries, Patel....... should be held to account for their intimidatory tactics in trying to influence the outcome. Democratic processes are fine for the right wing unless they involve 'punishing' one of their own. To both you and Dappy the issue here is how this whole affair appears to an onlooker and it’s not a pleasant sight. Boris Johnson most certainly had his flaws but he was no longer the PM,on being told the conclusions of this committee he stepped down as an MP. Any normal person or organisation would’ve been content but they then decided he should lose the right all departing MPs have of a commons pass,on learning he was to become a newspaper columnist they say they want that outlawed too,on top of that the way votes were recognised as in abstentions by all accounts was changed too. This isn’t an issue of left vs right but fairness and justice,tories were told not to criticise the judgement any who have are threatened that the committee will censure them too. This is supposedly a democracy the right to criticise should stand and be respected,let’s be clear on this the appearance of this whatever it’s make up is that of a kangaroo court on the premise that labour member gave their verdict before proceedings started,a Tory member is alleged to have attended a party during lockdown but is remaining schtum. On those two counts alone a person with any standards should’ve stepped down,that hasn’t happened and if either of you had any sense of fairness whatever your thoughts on Boris would say he deserves being gone but that was enough he’s gone and further sanctions appear nothing more than spite. Lets face it one Tory member of the lords went to prison but kept his place in the house,the whole affair stinks from top to bottom. He lost his premiership then lost his place as an MP that should suffice. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2023 10:00:33 GMT
The Tories voted to investigate partygate, agreed the makeup of the committee and agreed with the outcome. People like Mogg, Dorries, Patel....... should be held to account for their intimidatory tactics in trying to influence the outcome. Democratic processes are fine for the right wing unless they involve 'punishing' one of their own. To both you and Dappy the issue here is how this whole affair appears to an onlooker and it’s not a pleasant sight. Boris Johnson most certainly had his flaws but he was no longer the PM,on being told the conclusions of this committee he stepped down as an MP. Any normal person or organisation would’ve been content but they then decided he should lose the right all departing MPs have of a commons pass,on learning he was to become a newspaper columnist they say they want that outlawed too,on top of that the way votes were recognised as in abstentions by all accounts was changed too. This isn’t an issue of left vs right but fairness and justice,tories were told not to criticise the judgement any who have are threatened that the committee will censure them too. This is supposedly a democracy the right to criticise should stand and be respected,let’s be clear on this the appearance of this whatever it’s make up is that of a kangaroo court on the premise that labour member gave their verdict before proceedings started,a Tory member is alleged to have attended a party during lockdown but is remaining schtum. On those two counts alone a person with any standards should’ve stepped down,that hasn’t happened and if either of you had any sense of fairness whatever your thoughts on Boris would say he deserves being gone but that was enough he’s gone and further sanctions appear nothing more than spite. Lets face it one Tory member of the lords went to prison but kept his place in the house,the whole affair stinks from top to bottom. He lost his premiership then lost his place as an MP that should suffice. Johnson lied about lying to parliament and there by extension to us. He called the committee a 'kangaroo court' seeking to undermine the privileges committee and pressurising Tory MPs to stand down from the committee. This is now a matter of undermining our democracy, something most of you on this board cried out about when it came to Brexit. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 29, 2023 10:55:59 GMT
To both you and Dappy the issue here is how this whole affair appears to an onlooker and it’s not a pleasant sight. Boris Johnson most certainly had his flaws but he was no longer the PM,on being told the conclusions of this committee he stepped down as an MP. Any normal person or organisation would’ve been content but they then decided he should lose the right all departing MPs have of a commons pass,on learning he was to become a newspaper columnist they say they want that outlawed too,on top of that the way votes were recognised as in abstentions by all accounts was changed too. This isn’t an issue of left vs right but fairness and justice,tories were told not to criticise the judgement any who have are threatened that the committee will censure them too. This is supposedly a democracy the right to criticise should stand and be respected,let’s be clear on this the appearance of this whatever it’s make up is that of a kangaroo court on the premise that labour member gave their verdict before proceedings started,a Tory member is alleged to have attended a party during lockdown but is remaining schtum. On those two counts alone a person with any standards should’ve stepped down,that hasn’t happened and if either of you had any sense of fairness whatever your thoughts on Boris would say he deserves being gone but that was enough he’s gone and further sanctions appear nothing more than spite. Lets face it one Tory member of the lords went to prison but kept his place in the house,the whole affair stinks from top to bottom. He lost his premiership then lost his place as an MP that should suffice. Johnson lied about lying to parliament and there by extension to us. Was the conclusion the committee came to And with reference to my answer above did the chairperson pronounce guilt before proceedings began? In which case kangaroo court is an entirely correct conclusion No it’s not,in a democracy a person can criticise freely the conclusions of such bodies,I note you cannot or will not answer that his dismissal as PM then as an MP sufficed and that efforts to further sanctions beyond that appear as nothing more than spite. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 29, 2023 11:25:52 GMT
If I may jump into your conversation Watentake.
The committee of seven (if I remember correctly) members all agreed with and supported the findings of the committee. The chairman of the committee had taken steps long before the committee concluded to ensure all parties were happy with her chairmanship and received assurances she was. I am afraid throwing mud at the committees members and impugning their integrity is by definition an attack on the committee and therefore parliament and therefore democracy.
There would be nothing wrong in any MP stating in measured tones that he/she disagreed with the conclusions of the committee or indeed disagreed with the make up of the committee (although those complaints should have been made at a much earlier stage). That approach is not the approach Johnson, Rees Mogg and Dorries and a handful of others took. They instead attempted to divert attention away from the findings of the committee by noisily throwing mud at the committee and its members with inflammatory language such as witchhunt and kangaroo court. In doing so Johnson (not for the first time) sought to undermine the checks and balances of the institution and the reputations of the members chosen to serve the HOC to seek to preserve his backside. In so doing so he compromised their personal safety and that of their families and made it much it much harder for the authorities to find future candidates willing to take on such a committee role.
The withdrawal of his pass (and notional extending of his commons ban) was a reaction to the way Johnson behaved after resigning as an MP and the continuation of slurs against the committee personally rather than the issues they concluded on. Each is free to make their own judgement on the merits of that decision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2023 11:32:42 GMT
Johnson lied about lying to parliament and there by extension to us. Was the conclusion the committee came to And with reference to my answer above did the chairperson pronounce guilt before proceedings began? In which case kangaroo court is an entirely correct conclusion No it’s not,in a democracy a person can criticise freely the conclusions of such bodies,I note you cannot or will not answer that his dismissal as PM then as an MP sufficed and that efforts to further sanctions beyond that appear as nothing more than spite. It is a fact that there were no abstainers, not even the people who have attacked Harmon, when the commons nodded through her appointment only afterwards was there dissent. It would have been impossible for any MP not to have had an opinion as to whether Johnson lied or not, either way, in fact probably impossible throughout the country. Are you saying you believe he did not lie to the commons? Are you saying the matter should not have been investigate, don't forget the 'punishment' was only a recommendation. Just like Brexit the majority rule. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 29, 2023 11:37:01 GMT
If I may jump into your conversation Watentake. The committee of seven (if I remember correctly) members all agreed with and supported the findings of the committee. The chairman of the committee had taken steps long before the committee concluded to ensure all parties were happy with her chairmanship and received assurances she was. I am afraid throwing mud at the committees members and impugning their integrity is by definition an attack on the committee and therefore parliament and therefore democracy. There would be nothing wrong in any MP stating in measured tones that he/she disagreed with the conclusions of the committee or indeed disagreed with the make up of the committee (although those complaints should have been made at a much earlier stage). That approach is not the approach Johnson, Rees Mogg and Dorries and a handful of others took. They instead attempted to divert attention away from the findings of the committee by noisily throwing mud at the committee and its members with inflammatory language such as witchhunt and kangaroo court. In doing so Johnson (not for the first time) sought to undermine the checks and balances of the institution and the reputations of the members chosen to serve the HOC to seek to preserve his backside. In so doing so he compromised their personal safety and that of their families and made it much it much harder for the authorities to find future candidates willing to take on such a committee role. The withdrawal of his pass (and notional extending of his commons ban) was a reaction to the way Johnson behaved after resigning as an MP and the continuation of slurs against the committee personally rather than the issues they concluded on. Each is free to make their own judgement on the merits of that decision. Dappy can you answer if you believe it correct for the chair of such a committee to pronounce guilt at the outset of the proceedings? |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 29, 2023 12:16:28 GMT
If I may jump into your conversation Watentake. The committee of seven (if I remember correctly) members all agreed with and supported the findings of the committee. The chairman of the committee had taken steps long before the committee concluded to ensure all parties were happy with her chairmanship and received assurances she was. I am afraid throwing mud at the committees members and impugning their integrity is by definition an attack on the committee and therefore parliament and therefore democracy. There would be nothing wrong in any MP stating in measured tones that he/she disagreed with the conclusions of the committee or indeed disagreed with the make up of the committee (although those complaints should have been made at a much earlier stage). That approach is not the approach Johnson, Rees Mogg and Dorries and a handful of others took. They instead attempted to divert attention away from the findings of the committee by noisily throwing mud at the committee and its members with inflammatory language such as witchhunt and kangaroo court. In doing so Johnson (not for the first time) sought to undermine the checks and balances of the institution and the reputations of the members chosen to serve the HOC to seek to preserve his backside. In so doing so he compromised their personal safety and that of their families and made it much it much harder for the authorities to find future candidates willing to take on such a committee role. The withdrawal of his pass (and notional extending of his commons ban) was a reaction to the way Johnson behaved after resigning as an MP and the continuation of slurs against the committee personally rather than the issues they concluded on. Each is free to make their own judgement on the merits of that decision. Dappy can you answer if you believe it correct for the chair of such a committee to pronounce guilt at the outset of the proceedings? I think I already covered this above. The chair checked with the Government (then lead by Johnson) they were happy for her to continue with the role and they confirmed they were. Even if she hadn't checked and received that assurance, it is perfectly possible for people with integrity to put their personal views to one side and concentrate on the evidence presented while judging a case professionally. And even if it wasn't she was just one vote amongst seven (?), the other six all independently concluded the same. If Johnson wasn't happy with Harman chairing the committee, he could have raised the objection at the start of the process. He didn't. He is just throwing mud to obscure the outcome of the investigation. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 29, 2023 13:15:39 GMT
The privileges committee is there to ensure the standards of the house are maintained. It is an important check and balance that defends democracy. It is manned by decent MPs from all parties committed to put party differences to one side and commit themselves to judge matters that come before them impartially. You are having a fucking laugh - "standards of the House" - "defending democracy" - "judge matters impartially". You're in a parallel universe dappy. The "standards of the House" are a total disgrace. The whole lot of them are fucking liars - and some of them are criminals. The ludicrous Theresa May attacked Boris for lying over Partygate, but she actually lied about delivering Brexit. She said "Brexit means Brexit" but then sidelined her Brexit secretary and put Olly Robbins in charge (a civil servant who was a lifelong EU phile) to deliver BRINO. Now that's a lie. As for "defending democracy" it's blatantly obvious that the reason that Boris has been hounded out is because of an Establishment campaign to get back into the EU. That's NOT democracy. Parliament is stuffed full (75%) of remoaners - and the Lords is almost 100% remoaners. We do NOT have democracy. Judging matters impartially STARTS with having impartial judge and jury. But the whole fucking lot of them either hated Boris or had reasons to want to get rid of him - and most of them had said so. The whole thing is a joke and I think it'll backfire on them. The vicious bile that is directed against Boris risks making him a victim - which he is - and making him even more popular. That's what's happened in to Trump in the USA. He's way ahead in the Republican candidate race. |
|
