Well, I suspect the Met will be knocking on at least one of their doors tomorrow. If the vote on monday carries in favour of the committee, democracy is dead and buried.
Well Johnson
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
Well, I suspect the Met will be knocking on at least one of their doors tomorrow. If the vote on monday carries in favour of the committee, democracy is dead and buried.
Sponsored Links
Rubbish. How can a committee fabricate a verdict on an alleged miscreant, smearing an innocent person for political gain, get away with it when the alleged lying buffoon's party has an 80 seat majority? They can throw out the verdict by just turning up- simple. But his 80 seat majority chums KNOW he did all that, but are so spineless, they'l be 'unavoidably away from the House' when the matter is debated.
I think filly has been on the sauce. Drowning in sorrow.
How can a committees findings be so at odds with the findings of the Metropolitan Police, who after a lengthy investigation, and the Met are investigational experts, it's what they do. Lets remind ourselves, the Met found Boris guilty (together with Sunak) of one single transgression that merited a fifty quid FPN.
We now know that at least one of the select committee is likely to be investigated by the Met for the same offence yet that person didn't declare it to the committee or attempt to recuse themself from the committee.
90 day suspension and withdrawal of Parliamentary pass, unprecedented, vindictive, this is not about lies or breaking rules, it's about removing someone from the political scene purely for political purposes. It's undemocratic and spits in the face of the voting public.
Sponsored Links
No mate, these days I spend my evenings coming up with counter arguments and debate rather than insults.
In the end there were five findings of contempt. He only actually got 20 days for misleading Parliament. The other four contempts were for things like lying to and obstructing the investigation, leaking the findings, and for attempting to intimidate the committee. Sometimes actions have consequences. Maybe for the first time in his life, he is finding out the hard way.
How can somebody who made the covid rules, think that a gathering of a drunken crowd in a confined space was allowed.
The 80 seat majority means nothing. It's fair to say all other parties will agree with the committees findings, the Conservative party will be split evenly along the leave/remain lines, although there are leavers who dislike Johnson, witness Bernard Jenkin.
As much as I'd like to see a revolt in support of Johnson, I doubt that will happen.
I wouldn't be surprised if the RSPCA bring charges against the select committee for giving kangaroos a bad name.
That will be a source of universal indifference.
Do you have a problem with this finding? If so, can you explain what the committee did wrong.
See post #5
In which you quote a Johnson supporter wildly groping for any way to justify Johnson repeatedly lying to Parliament.
Which bit of #5. The author makes five claims.
Looking at post #55 above:
The first claim is no longer relevant. There was a slight technical change to the definition of misleading, but because Johnson was found to have deliberately misled, that is no longer an issue.
The second claim is that a lower standard of proof ("on the balance of probabilities") was used than in some other cases. The evidence above seems pretty overwhelming, though. I don't think a slightly higher standard of proof would have helped Johnson.
The third claim is that some witnesses were kept secret. But that doesn't seem to be true. The author seems to be mistaken, here.
The fourth claim is that Boris should have been able to have his lawyer speak for him at the hearing. Would that have helped in this case. Would he have denied being there for ten minutes, which is the crucial point?
The final claim is that Boris/lawyer should have been able to cross examine the witnesses. That's the most interesting one, I think. If his lawyer had been able to question them, what would have happened. These are inquisitorial proceedings not adversarial ones. I don't know how that fits with cross-examining witnesses, But on the face of it, I agree it seems unfair.
Sponsored Links
