|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 29, 2023 13:32:01 GMT
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. No Dappy you’re not covered it,I’m not asking what the govt,the committee or any other said,I’m asking you if you believe it’s correct for someone to pronounce someone’s guilt at the outset of proceedings. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2023 13:41:31 GMT
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. No Dappy you’re not covered it,I’m not asking what the govt,the committee or any other said,I’m asking you if you believe it’s correct for someone to pronounce someone’s guilt at the outset of proceedings. There is not a problem with that as long as they use the evidence and only the evidence and the Tory party came to the same conclusion. They all knew he lied even those that still support him. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 29, 2023 13:43:07 GMT
I agree with Boris Johnson and the government at the time. And all the other committee members. And the House of Commons. No reason why Harman was not suitable to chair the committee.
Why do you think Johnson only threw this mud at the end of the case and not at the start?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2023 13:44:04 GMT
I agree with Boris Johnson and the government at the time. And all the other committee members. And the House of Commons. No reason why Harman was not suitable to chair the committee. Why do you think Johnson only threw this mud at the end of the case and not at the start? Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 29, 2023 13:48:12 GMT
No Dappy you’re not covered it,I’m not asking what the govt,the committee or any other said,I’m asking you if you believe it’s correct for someone to pronounce someone’s guilt at the outset of proceedings. There is not a problem with that as long as they use the evidence and only the evidence and the Tory party came to the same conclusion. They all knew he lied even those that still support him. Right so based on that you are saying it is correct to assume guilt before any proceedings start |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 29, 2023 14:03:00 GMT
You haven't answered the question I asked you Wapentake, even though I answered yours.
Why is that I wonder.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2023 14:09:42 GMT
There is not a problem with that as long as they use the evidence and only the evidence and the Tory party came to the same conclusion. They all knew he lied even those that still support him. Right so based on that you are saying it is correct to assume guilt before any proceedings start I did not say that. My question is/was who would have replaced her/them? |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 29, 2023 17:08:33 GMT
Right so based on that you are saying it is correct to assume guilt before any proceedings start I did not say that. My question is/was who would have replaced her/them? Yeah and I didn’t ask who would replace them. It really is a simple question if guilt is assumed from the outset that can never be right,btw if this was happening to someone on the left I’d be saying the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 29, 2023 17:10:10 GMT
I can't think of anyone worse that Harman casting judgement over others, it's just a sign of the times, the UK is finished.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 29, 2023 18:04:25 GMT
You haven't answered the question I asked you Wapentake, even though I answered yours. Why is that I wonder..... What question,and no you haven’t answered mine . Oh and btw Harman lied over the Iraq war. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 29, 2023 18:21:20 GMT
Oh dear wapentake. You do know that the thread remains visible to all?
If you look up the thread you will find that I have repeatedly answered your question. You will also see the question I asked you which you seem so keen to dodge.
Not your finest hour perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 29, 2023 18:24:46 GMT
You haven't answered the question I asked you Wapentake, even though I answered yours. Why is that I wonder..... What question,and no you haven’t answered mine . Oh and btw Harman lied over the Iraq war.Absolutely, and thanks to her lies we are now in the midst of constant threats of terrorist attacks.
This fuckin old boot has the audacity to judge others when her boss Tony Blair declared war on the basis of LIES, she's just as much a war criminal as he is, and the fact she's chairing a 'committee of privileges' is just utterly wrong and immoral, I think it's about time we reignited this outrage, and tell the world why ISIS is on the war path, I wonder what the Uni lefty woke snowflakes will think about the looney lefties, they are too young to remember, but I think we should 'have that conversation' with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 29, 2023 18:29:20 GMT
Oh dear wapentake. You do know that the thread remains visible to all? If you look up the thread you will find that I have repeatedly answered your question. You will also see the question I asked you which you seem so keen to dodge. Not your finest hour perhaps? Oh dear repeat the question |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 29, 2023 18:53:47 GMT
Oh dear wapentake. You do know that the thread remains visible to all? If you look up the thread you will find that I have repeatedly answered your question. You will also see the question I asked you which you seem so keen to dodge. Not your finest hour perhaps? Ah the mud,perhaps he was expecting a fair hearing. And I ask would you be happy were you under investigation to be deemed guilty before the proceedings began? |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 29, 2023 18:55:20 GMT
What is the privileges committee actually reporting on ?
If we are talking parliamentary privilege as opposed to standards and ethics then as a matter of case law thanks to Regina v Ponting (or more to the point Thatcher v Ponting because she thought herself the bloody Queen) members of the house are by virtue of their oath authorised to be party to a degree of state secrecy unavailable to non members.
That alone, i think, justifies one committee bereft of ‘lay’ ie non elected MP members who have not takennthe oath and thus enabled them to speak and receive a salary.
|
|
