Well Johnson

[noseall]

How can a committees findings

....have access to a greater amount of damning material than the rozzer investigation? Because witnesses and the material they brought were more forthcoming. And the committee were able to throw a much wider net.

You need to stop clutching at straws for your own sanity.

 

[noseall]

The 80 seat majority means nothing.

So why did you and your fellow Boris horn smokers get so exited about at the time and have since mentioned it on this forum often?

 

[noseall]

I wouldn't be surprised if the RSPCA bring charges against the select committee for giving kangaroos a bad name.

Mumsnet, R&D testing section, is looking for dummy spitters and teddy chuckers. I've put your name forward.

 

[charliegolf]

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.

IT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH BREAKING THE LAW! It's to do with lying to Parliament. Misleading Parliament is the most serious infraction of Parliamentary rules- it's not a crime under common law. The Met don't give a toot about it. Parliament does. So, the Met 'didn't fail to find evidence' because they were never looking for evidence he lied, rather, that he broke the law.

 

[fillyboy]

IT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH BREAKING THE LAW! It's to do with lying to Parliament. Misleading Parliament is the most serious infraction of Parliamentary rules- it's not a crime under common law. The Met don't give a toot about it. Parliament does. So, the Met 'didn't fail to find evidence' because they were never looking for evidence he lied, rather, that he broke the law.

I bet you've never kissed a Tory.

 

[blup]

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.

Johnson was given the opportunity to counter the disputed evidence about the alleged assurances he received. That is perfectly fair in the context of an inquisitorial parliamentary standards investigation, this wasn't a court trial, and didn't involve complicated issues of fact. Just simple issues of lying.

Blup

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I bet you've never kissed a Tory.

I bet you've kissed most parts of 1 particular Tory

 

[Odds]

 

[fillyboy]

I bet you've kissed most parts of 1 particular Tory

That's not a nice thing to say.

 

[Deleted member 174758]

That's not a nice thing to say.

The truth sometimes hurts

 

[JonathanM]

Johnson was given the opportunity to counter the disputed evidence about the alleged assurances he received. That is perfectly fair in the context of an inquisitorial parliamentary standards investigation, this wasn't a court trial, and didn't involve complicated issues of fact. Just simple issues of lying.

Blup

I think the problem here is that, in this country, we're not really familiar with inquisitorial proceedings. At the hearing, Johnson wasn't a defendant being prosecuted, he was just another witness. The Committee weren't trying to prove his guilt, they were simply trying to get to the truth. They asked tough questions, but that's their job. It was quite abrasive, but that's because Johnson is well known as an unreliable witness, who conflates and obfuscates, as easily as most people breathe.

But still, this issue about not being able to cross-examine witnesses nags at me. As much as I despise Johnson, my desire for fairness overrides that. And being a sucker for legal dramas, the adversarial system is pretty much hard wired into my brain.

 

[blup]

I think the problem here is that, in this country, we're not really familiar with inquisitorial proceedings. At the hearing, Johnson wasn't a defendant being prosecuted, he was just another witness. The Committee weren't trying to prove his guilt, they were simply trying to get to the truth. They asked tough questions, but that's their job. It was quite abrasive, but that's because Johnson is well known as an unreliable witness, who conflates and obfuscates, as easily as most people breathe.

But still, this issue about not being able to cross-examine witnesses nags at me. As much as I despise Johnson, my desire for fairness overrides that. And being a sucker for legal dramas, the adversarial system is pretty much hard wired into my brain.

In which case the whole system must be flawed because he is being "tried" by politicians. But this was not a criminal or even a civil trial, but an inquiry by Johnson's peers on whether he misled parliament. They are more than capable of undertaking a fair process. No, the cross examination point is made by purist lawyers and party propogandists, plus of course Filly.

Blup

 

[charliegolf]

I bet you've never kissed a Tory.

Ew!

 

[fillyboy]

Balanced article from Tom Watson

Unravelling the Boris Johnson Decision: An Unsettling Perspective

A one-off Friday special

tomwatsonofficial.substack.com

 

[transam]

Any way johnson has got a job with the wail ( apparently)