|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 30, 2023 7:05:06 GMT
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. Harriet harman has claimed that she checked with "the government": “ I actually said I am more than happy to step aside because perception matters and I don’t want to do this if the Government doesn’t have confidence in me, because I need the whole House to have confidence in the work that the committee has mandated. I was assured that I should continue the work that the House had mandated with the appointment that the House had put me into and so I did just that.” Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg told the Commons he was not aware of any “secret agreement” between Ms Harman and the Government. He said: “Suddenly we discover in this transparent approach that there was a secret agreement, that her involvement was all right. Well, I was in the Government at the time, I never heard that this had happened.” Ms Harman has never been able to say who she talked to in "the government" - if anyone. It certainly wasn't Boris because he had already complained that she had said that by accepting the fine for the birthday cake party he "had admitted to misleading the House". Could it be that she was misleading the House? But if she acknowledges that "perception matters" it seems fairly irrelevant that some unknown and unnamed person "in government" has said that it's OK for her to chair a committee charged with judging Johnson on charges that he misled the House when she has made several pronouncements to the effect that Johnson is guilty. This stinks to high heaven and the judgement should be set aside if Parliament's authority is not to be further undermined. Frankly if Harman herself can't see that she was unfit to be anywhere near that committee then she should step down from Parliament. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2023 7:18:00 GMT
Questioning the process is fine but calling it a Kangaroo court is not. Questioning the process is fine but coming out on public media and accusing the committee of a witch-hunt is specifically designed to inject outrage in a certain section of the population. They should have presented any supporting evidence to the committee at the correct time and got involved with the process instead of sniping from the side-lines. Another question that I know you will not answer. Do you believe Boris Johnson lied? Of course Johnson lies - but if you are going to hold that up as a barrier to being a politician then the House of Parliament is going to be deserted.. There is a big difference in 'lying' in general, that can and is taken as just a case of mis-speaking or wilful but when you lie in the HoC to deliberately mislead the MPs, that is contempt of parliament. Johnson lied in the HoC and when he was called out in the HoC the accusers were punished and told to leave. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 30, 2023 7:20:02 GMT
Of course Johnson lies - but if you are going to hold that up as a barrier to being a politician then the House of Parliament is going to be deserted.. There is a big difference in 'lying' in general, that can and is taken as just a case of mis-speaking or wilful but when you lie in the HoC to deliberately mislead the MPs, that is contempt of parliament. Johnson lied in the HoC and when he was called out in the HoC the accusers were punished and told to leave. We have been all through this before - and yet nobody has shown where, in the 108 page report, the evidence is that Johnson deliberately mislead MP's. What page is this evidence on? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2023 7:20:39 GMT
More kangaroos in this mornings paper..  "Yesterday, the committee published a second pompous report, this time castigating MPs including Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees-Mogg for trying to prevent the inquiry “coming to a conclusion which its critics did not want”.
If it hops like a kangaroo court then maybe it is a kangaroo court, but if you suggest it is a kangaroo court the kangaroo court will convene another kangaroo court to find you guilty of calling it a kangaroo court. Double kanga!
Wait, that’s not all. The farce starts over on July 10th when the Commons debates this latest report. Potentially, the Opposition could table a motion and insist the censured MPs suffer a penalty and, following a vote, they might be suspended, even subject to by-elections. We could call them kangaroo by-elections, but that would be terribly wrong because no kangaroos were harmed in the making of this inquiry, although, if you ask me, democracy has definitely taken a bit of a dent.
“Free speech is at the heart of parliamentary democracy,” says the report, “However…”
“However” should never be used to qualify free speech, which is free or it is nothing. Unless, that is, you wish to silence critics who come to a conclusion you don’t want."Do you think the like of Mogg and Dorries should be exempted from the processes that they swore to uphold? |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Jun 30, 2023 7:20:43 GMT
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? And while we're on the subject - how come there's only ONE Monopolies Commission? Eh? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 30, 2023 7:21:53 GMT
More kangaroos in this mornings paper.. "Yesterday, the committee published a second pompous report, this time castigating MPs including Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees-Mogg for trying to prevent the inquiry “coming to a conclusion which its critics did not want”.
If it hops like a kangaroo court then maybe it is a kangaroo court, but if you suggest it is a kangaroo court the kangaroo court will convene another kangaroo court to find you guilty of calling it a kangaroo court. Double kanga!
Wait, that’s not all. The farce starts over on July 10th when the Commons debates this latest report. Potentially, the Opposition could table a motion and insist the censured MPs suffer a penalty and, following a vote, they might be suspended, even subject to by-elections. We could call them kangaroo by-elections, but that would be terribly wrong because no kangaroos were harmed in the making of this inquiry, although, if you ask me, democracy has definitely taken a bit of a dent.
“Free speech is at the heart of parliamentary democracy,” says the report, “However…”
“However” should never be used to qualify free speech, which is free or it is nothing. Unless, that is, you wish to silence critics who come to a conclusion you don’t want."Do you think the like of Mogg and Dorries should be exempted from the processes that they swore to uphold? Do you believe in Free Speech? - should your parliamentary representatives be silenced by other politicians who hold opposing views? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2023 7:37:25 GMT
There is a big difference in 'lying' in general, that can and is taken as just a case of mis-speaking or wilful but when you lie in the HoC to deliberately mislead the MPs, that is contempt of parliament. Johnson lied in the HoC and when he was called out in the HoC the accusers were punished and told to leave. We have been all through this before - and yet nobody has shown where, in the 108 page report, the evidence is that Johnson deliberately mislead MP's. What page is this evidence on? The one thing about a liar is that they lie. It is, I agree a very difficult thing to prove. Except, in Johnson's case were he was tripped himself up and exposed his lying. He initially said in the HoC that 'no parties were held in Downing street and all guidance was followed' while the evidence showed him at a party. "when he said that he relied on repeated assurances that the rules had not been broken. The assurances he received were not accurately represented by him to the House, nor were they appropriate to be cited to the House as an authoritative indication of No. 10’s compliance with Covid restrictions" Privileges committee. According to the 110-page document, then-Cabinet Secretary Simon Case said he was not aware of anyone else giving Johnson those assurances and Johnson's director of communication at the time, Jack Doyle, also denied assuring Johnson that the guidance was adhered to at all times. I don't know what you read but just that one sentence sums it up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2023 7:37:56 GMT
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? And while we're on the subject - how come there's only ONE Monopolies Commission? Eh? Good point.😂 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2023 7:42:59 GMT
Do you think the like of Mogg and Dorries should be exempted from the processes that they swore to uphold? Do you believe in Free Speech? - should your parliamentary representatives be silenced by other politicians who hold opposing views? Ah, free speech. Free speech is one thing and I am all for it but not impugning the very processes you swore to uphold. It's a bit like being knighted and then shouting 'kill the king'. They could have objected at any time to the process through established parliamentary channels, they decided to use the press and social media and 'attack' the privileges committee. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 30, 2023 7:45:10 GMT
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? And while we're on the subject - how come there's only ONE Monopolies Commission? Eh? Not a clue…doh  |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 30, 2023 7:46:42 GMT
Do you believe in Free Speech? - should your parliamentary representatives be silenced by other politicians who hold opposing views? Ah, free speech. Free speech is one thing and I am all for it but not impugning the very processes you swore to uphold. It's a bit like being knighted and then shouting 'kill the king'. They could have objected at any time to the process through established parliamentary channels, they decided to use the press and social media and 'attack' the privileges committee. Anybody who thinks up the name of privileges committee who are determined to remove privileges from some not others ain't exactly tightly wrapped. Or honest in its intentions, but then why am I not surprised you see it as a victory. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 30, 2023 8:09:02 GMT
Do you believe in Free Speech? - should your parliamentary representatives be silenced by other politicians who hold opposing views? Ah, free speech. Free speech is one thing and I am all for it but not impugning the very processes you swore to uphold. It's a bit like being knighted and then shouting 'kill the king'. They could have objected at any time to the process through established parliamentary channels, they decided to use the press and social media and 'attack' the privileges committee. These people weren't "impugning the very processes" - they were saying that the people selected for the committee were inappropriate. As you should know Chris Bryant (a labour MP) recused himself from the chairmanship of the committee because he had already decided that Boris was guilty and he had publicly said that - which made him an inappropriate choice. Harriet Harman was also inappropriate and should never have been chosen. It's also inappropriate to have people on the committee who are known to have broken lock down rules when this is the basis of case against Boris. On the subject of free speech anyone can criticise both the processes and the practices of the House. The opposition criticise the government every day for all manner of things. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2023 9:11:06 GMT
Ah, free speech. Free speech is one thing and I am all for it but not impugning the very processes you swore to uphold. It's a bit like being knighted and then shouting 'kill the king'. They could have objected at any time to the process through established parliamentary channels, they decided to use the press and social media and 'attack' the privileges committee. These people weren't "impugning the very processes" - they were saying that the people selected for the committee were inappropriate. As you should know Chris Bryant (a labour MP) recused himself from the chairmanship of the committee because he had already decided that Boris was guilty and he had publicly said that - which made him an inappropriate choice. Harriet Harman was also inappropriate and should never have been chosen. It's also inappropriate to have people on the committee who are known to have broken lock down rules when this is the basis of case against Boris. On the subject of free speech anyone can criticise both the processes and the practices of the House. The opposition criticise the government every day for all manner of things. Why did they agree to them in the first place? Why wait until the report was out to voice their concerns? Why did they air their concerns in the media and not in the correct procedures? Why did they use inciteful language? Do they have evidence that the findings are wrong? Why did the committee members have to increase their security? I say again everyone has the right to criticise but they do not have the 'attack' them, threaten their livelihood, call them stupid names. Lawyers. Judges. Unions. Nurses. Doctors. Railway workers. Protesters. ECHR. Asylum seekers. The EU. Remainers. Lefty police officers. Consultants. …. And now the privileges committee, all 'enemies of the state'. The Tories are waging a war of division and you can't see it. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 30, 2023 9:25:56 GMT
These people weren't "impugning the very processes" - they were saying that the people selected for the committee were inappropriate. As you should know Chris Bryant (a labour MP) recused himself from the chairmanship of the committee because he had already decided that Boris was guilty and he had publicly said that - which made him an inappropriate choice. Harriet Harman was also inappropriate and should never have been chosen. It's also inappropriate to have people on the committee who are known to have broken lock down rules when this is the basis of case against Boris. On the subject of free speech anyone can criticise both the processes and the practices of the House. The opposition criticise the government every day for all manner of things. Why did they agree to them in the first place? Why wait until the report was out to voice their concerns? Why did they air their concerns in the media and not in the correct procedures? Why did they use inciteful language? Do they have evidence that the findings are wrong? Why did the committee members have to increase their security? I say again everyone has the right to criticise but they do not have the 'attack' them, threaten their livelihood, call them stupid names. Lawyers. Judges. Unions. Nurses. Doctors. Railway workers. Protesters. ECHR. Asylum seekers. The EU. Remainers. Lefty police officers. Consultants. …. And now the privileges committee, all 'enemies of the state'. The Tories are waging a war of division and you can't see it. So you can’t answer steppenwolfs insightful post and resort to diversion of the topic to justify your inability to reply to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 30, 2023 10:46:07 GMT
We have been all through this before - and yet nobody has shown where, in the 108 page report, the evidence is that Johnson deliberately mislead MP's. What page is this evidence on? The one thing about a liar is that they lie. It is, I agree a very difficult thing to prove. Except, in Johnson's case were he was tripped himself up and exposed his lying. He initially said in the HoC that 'no parties were held in Downing street and all guidance was followed' while the evidence showed him at a party. "when he said that he relied on repeated assurances that the rules had not been broken. The assurances he received were not accurately represented by him to the House, nor were they appropriate to be cited to the House as an authoritative indication of No. 10’s compliance with Covid restrictions" Privileges committee.According to the 110-page document, then-Cabinet Secretary Simon Case said he was not aware of anyone else giving Johnson those assurances and Johnson's director of communication at the time, Jack Doyle, also denied assuring Johnson that the guidance was adhered to at all times. I don't know what you read but just that one sentence sums it up. That is an opinion - it is not evidence. |
|
