|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 30, 2023 10:47:26 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. We have had republicans made peers before - are you suggesting they should be banned from the Lords for holding such views? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2023 12:31:31 GMT
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. He said he relied on evidence - no one has come forward and said they assured him and the two people he said assured him deny it, that is evidence. You yourself admit he is a liar are you now saying that everybody is lying? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2023 12:32:33 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. We have had republicans made peers before - are you suggesting they should be banned from the Lords for holding such views? What?  Ah I see started the trolling again.😒 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2023 12:36:47 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. They did not object at the time the committee was formed and indeed only complained when he was found to have deliberately lied. "Harriet Harman has revealed the Government provided her with assurances that she would not be perceived as biased when making judgments regarding Boris Johnson. The Labour veteran and chairwoman of the Privileges Committee made the revelation after Conservative former cabinet minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg asked her about her “famous tweets” and whether she believed she met the Hoffmann test — an assessment of impartiality. Ms Harman’s suitability has been repeatedly questioned by Mr Johnson and his loyalists over an April 2022 tweet, in which she suggested that by accepting a fine for breaking Covid rules the former prime minister was also admitting to misleading the House. Responding to Sir Jacob, the Camberwell and Peckham MP acknowledged that the spotlight on her tweets had raised concerns about the perceived fairness of the committee’s proceedings, but said she took it upon herself to investigate whether the Government would lack confidence in her chairmanship if she continued in the role". |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 30, 2023 17:14:03 GMT
That is an opinion - it is not evidence. He said he relied on evidence - no one has come forward and said they assured him and the two people he said assured him deny it, that is evidence. You yourself admit he is a liar are you now saying that everybody is lying? Its not up to Johnson to prove anything - those making the allegation are the ones that have to prove their case. I hope we never have trials where people have to prove their innocence. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2023 5:47:25 GMT
He said he relied on evidence - no one has come forward and said they assured him and the two people he said assured him deny it, that is evidence. You yourself admit he is a liar are you now saying that everybody is lying? Its not up to Johnson to prove anything - those making the allegation are the ones that have to prove their case. I hope we never have trials where people have to prove their innocence. They did prove it. Since you mention the courts, they have to, when they are dealing with liars go on the 'evidence' of witnesses which the committee did. Are you really saying that Johnson was telling the truth to the committee and that the two named 'witness' were lying? Since you mention the courts the defence has to rebut the prosecution evidence and thereby 'prove' the innocence of their client. Since you mention the courts, Johnson had some of the most expensive lawyers that 'we' could pay for and they could not rebut the evidence of the witnesses. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 1, 2023 6:36:28 GMT
As I said, RR, it's unclear who Harriet Harman consulted "in government" to "establish confidence in her chairmanship of the committee". Jacob Rees-Mogg said in an interview on "Today" yesterday that he had personally asked Boris Johnson about this claim and Boris said he had no knowledge of it. And Harriet Harman herself has refused to say who she asked. This sounds like an attempt to mislead Parliament to me.
And she has acknowledged that "perception" is important - that justice must be SEEN to be done. This STINKS. I think there should be a full Parliamentary investigation into Harriet Harman and her role in this travesty. Or is it only so-called "Right wing Brexiteers" that are subject to these witch hunts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 1, 2023 6:39:28 GMT
Its not up to Johnson to prove anything - those making the allegation are the ones that have to prove their case. I hope we never have trials where people have to prove their innocence. They did prove it. Since you mention the courts, they have to, when they are dealing with liars go on the 'evidence' of witnesses which the committee did. Are you really saying that Johnson was telling the truth to the committee and that the two named 'witness' were lying? Since you mention the courts the defence has to rebut the prosecution evidence and thereby 'prove' the innocence of their client. Since you mention the courts, Johnson had some of the most expensive lawyers that 'we' could pay for and they could not rebut the evidence of the witnesses. What page is this 'proof' on? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 1, 2023 6:55:16 GMT
I think the original purpose of the inquiry was to prove that Boris "had deliberately misled" Parliament - which is of course impossible. But this subtly changed at some point to being simply that he had misled Parliament. The trouble with this is that MPs "mislead" Parliament every day, by, for example, presenting one-sided arguments. Theresa May was an egregious offender. And there also downright lies like the lies that led us into the illegal overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
So can we look forward to more of these pointless kangaroo courts? Or is it just Boris that gets this kind of disgraceful treatment.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jul 1, 2023 6:57:50 GMT
They did prove it. Since you mention the courts, they have to, when they are dealing with liars go on the 'evidence' of witnesses which the committee did. Are you really saying that Johnson was telling the truth to the committee and that the two named 'witness' were lying? Since you mention the courts the defence has to rebut the prosecution evidence and thereby 'prove' the innocence of their client. Since you mention the courts, Johnson had some of the most expensive lawyers that 'we' could pay for and they could not rebut the evidence of the witnesses. What page is this 'proof' on? Page 11 paragraph 14 amentment b. Of the remnants book of bullshit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2023 7:06:58 GMT
As I said, RR, it's unclear who Harriet Harman consulted "in government" to "establish confidence in her chairmanship of the committee". Jacob Rees-Mogg said in an interview on "Today" yesterday that he had personally asked Boris Johnson about this claim and Boris said he had no knowledge of it. And Harriet Harman herself has refused to say who she asked. This sounds like an attempt to mislead Parliament to me. And she has acknowledged that "perception" is important - that justice must be SEEN to be done. This STINKS. I think there should be a full Parliamentary investigation into Harriet Harman and her role in this travesty. Or is it only so-called "Right wing Brexiteers" that are subject to these witch hunts? You discredit your own argument by citing Johnson's words. Harmon does not need to 'prove' she asked anyone and no one from the government has come out and denied her account and until that happens we are where we are. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2023 7:07:37 GMT
They did prove it. Since you mention the courts, they have to, when they are dealing with liars go on the 'evidence' of witnesses which the committee did. Are you really saying that Johnson was telling the truth to the committee and that the two named 'witness' were lying? Since you mention the courts the defence has to rebut the prosecution evidence and thereby 'prove' the innocence of their client. Since you mention the courts, Johnson had some of the most expensive lawyers that 'we' could pay for and they could not rebut the evidence of the witnesses. What page is this 'proof' on? I showed you before. Stop trolling. |
|
