Boris Would Have Been Suspended...

[choux]

for 90 days had he not resigned. tbh, I am not surprised but it is a mucky game in politics and there will be more dirt-throwing, no doubt. The world still spins ;)

[gulliver1]

Boris is laughing his socks off , being paid an mps salary but never attending parliament ,while jetting around trousering £5M making after dinner speeches and at the same time being investigated for telling lies and the tax payer footing the bill.
How much did the investigating panel of MPs pocket ??
What a gravy train this lot are on .

[Untitled]

youngmafbog

they had that when johnson was challenged in the supreme court over prorogation and was found to have misled the queen... and they were not happy then either

johnson's fans want their man in the top job and to be entitled to do whatever the hell he wants. sorry but that's not how our system works.

[Untitled]

could any of the people alleging bias please point to the section of the privileges committee report that they feel is most biased or unfair?

they have been extremely transparent with their investigation and have substantiated their conclusions very well... which part of their report in your opinion best demonstrates bias or unfairness toward boris johnson?

[choux]

ymb, I cannot fault your impartiality, well said.

[naomi24]

Gromit, having an opinion is one thing. Expressing it publicly is something else entirely. They were determined to get rid of Boris by hook or by crook - and it turned out they did it by ... crook. The Conservatives have done themselves no favours whatsoever, it will come back to haunt them - and I sincerely hope it does.

[Gromit]

Labour MP Chris Bryant recused himself from Chairing the Committee after Jacob Rees Mogg objected to him. The Committee had to choose a new Chair, but none of the Tories wanted that poison chalice. So Harman got the job purely because no one else wanted it.

[Peter Pedant]

In no way can you claim HarPerson went in with an open mind. Same for that Tory that has been found out.

a Yank talking about juries and Trumpo said: we cant expect people ( jurors) NOT to have heard of Trump or even express an opinion on him. We want people who had put their views behind them.

Now my dears
First of all this is not judicial ( and may not even be justiciable - amenable to a court action or review that is). It COULD be quasi-judicial. - ( judge-ish).
The rules for judges are much simpler and stricter. Hewart 1924 - a judge must be above suspicion. Remember Pinochet? One of the judgements was revised as a Law Lord's wife was a director of Amnesty, the red hot marxist org that tried to spring political prisoners. so out Lord Lu-lu went and the case was reheard.

For us mortals, the rules are looser. You have to show bias in the decision. - not - his muvva in law might have hit a policeman 20 y ago. I mean we ( as a jury) were threatened by the defendants relations, and the judge said: "what ho - into the jury room you go!". we convicted. He did NOT say, oh heavns you cant make a fair decision now....

and I think the commons ctee gets into the second category - you have to show bias in the decision

sozza to ramble and use long words like "justiciable" - and foo

[Peter Pedant]

could any of the people alleging bias please point to the section of the privileges committee report that they feel is most biased or unfair?

good point untitled
very good point
and probably represents an accurate statemtn of the law on this point (ass uming of course that a ctee decision such as this is appealable)

like Little Weeeeed, a blushing hidden best answer

[Peter Pedant]

Gromit, having an opinion is one thing. Expressing it publicly is something else entirely.

well heavens, not an issue on AB ( expressing an opinion that is) esp if you are a mod.

who was it who came out with twaddle yesterday - why say something if you are not going to act on it?

I would say: if you dont say a biased opinion, does that mean you are unbiassed? - rather obviously not, I suggest

carry on ABers

[Peter Pedant]

An impartial set of Judges with the Chair in particular being impartial. And what is wrong with that?

they arent judges, and it is not a court - that is what !

The are an independent parliamentary ctee- See the Act of 1689 etc

( confused ABer ( tres confuse) : act of sixteen eighty - foo?)

[naomi24]

//they arent judges, and it is not a court - that is what ! //

Nonsense. They sat in judgement - and they judged him.

[Atheist]

A judge wears a wig and sends people to prison. The Committee would have recommended a course of action and the HOC would have voted on what action to take. All democratic. You can't redefine the word 'judge' to suit your own agenda. You don't like that sort of thing.

[Mozz71]

The problem is that in the eyes of his supporters there were only two possible outcomes to this matter: not guilty of misleading the house or a biased committee out to get their boy. Under no circumstances will they consider that he may have screwed up, then tried to cover his tracks with his fibbing.

[Gromit]

Chris Bryant is Chair of the Priviledges Committee.
He reclused himself after Jacob Rees Mogg question his impartiality.
None of the Tory MPs on the Committee wanted to Chair the Johnson Inquiry. So Harriet Harmon got the job.
Now when the report is published, Johnson’s supporters say Harman should never have been in charge, when it was because of them that she was appointed.

[ClareTG0ld]

Anybody here going to read the report and evaluate the case on its merits? Without that, all the remarks about bias etc have no substance to them.

[Gromit]

Evidence submitted to the committee revealed parties were held at Chequers, the Johnsons’ weekend retreat, in defiance of lockdown rules. Those are now being investigated, and possible fines could be issued.
Presumably his resignation ends a parliamentary investigation, so it can immediately go to the Police.

[naomi24]

atheist, .//You don't like that sort of thing. //

Do you know that - or did you make a judgement? Look it up.

None of this is about cake or so-called parties but they've succeeded in pulling the wool over countless eyes and got you all jumping up and down in some sort of bizarre righteous indignation. His demise is about Brexit and nothing else but they couldn't get him for that because his willingness to respect the result of the referendum is why he romped home with such an astonishing victory - and so they latched onto something else and did the job that way. Shameful - the lot of them.

[ClareTG0ld]

It's absolute nonsense that this has anything to do with Brexit and frankly anybody who thinks that has fallen for Johnson's own propaganda.

[naomi24]

What is it 'they' say? Oh yes. You would say that.