News5 mins ago
Boris Would Have Been Suspended...
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 ;)
Answers
//i honestly dom't know what his cringeing followers want.// Ah, if all else fails name call. It seems quite clear from the posts above: An impartial set of Judges with the Chair in particular being impartial. And what is wrong with that?
11:22 Thu 15th Jun 2023
Mr Gove will abstain from voting:
https:/
https:/
// ClareTG0ld is aware of the reason I won’t enter into discussion on topics such as this... I do not enter into discussion on topics such as this with ClareTG0ld - and ClareTG0ld knows why. //
I'm actually not, unless it's something that started at some point on Friday. Still, I'm not complaining, and Naomi is of course entitled to not reply to me or any other member if she so wishes.
On the other hand, my comment yesterday at 8:32 doesn't includes much input that could reasonably be described as my own opinion. Instead it:
a) cites (and quotes verbatim from) a report from the Privileges Committee, which addresses many of the points in the video;
b) makes clear that the Committee took legal advice themselves, including from the Speaker's Office;
c) points out one easily-verifiable fact about Pannick's impartiality in this context, omitted from OG's video link;
d) Points out that the ultimate arbiter is Parliament as a whole, in a vote that will be held on Monday.
What it doesn't do is:
a) comment, from my own perspective, on the merits of the legal position taken by either the video or the Committee's response to Lord Pannick's submissions (merely confining myself, as stated above, to noting that the Committee had also taken legal advice from multiple sources);
b) comment, from my own perspective, on the merits of any other (non-legal) opinions expressed in the video.
In that sense, in not entering into a discussion about this based on who posted it, you're refusing to engage, not with me, but with substantive legal and factual aspects of the case. As far as the legal aspects go, it goes without saying that I am no authority compared with either Lord Pannick or Mr. Barrett from the video. But the Office of Speaker's Counsel, and Sir Ernest Ryder, presumably *are*. And as far as the factual aspects go, it's easy for anybody to verify that Lord Pannick was part of Johnson's legal team throughout the investigation, and therefore not impartial or "non-partisan".
Note that Mr. Barrett is a barrister specialising in financial and commercial law, rather than constitutional law. I would expect that many skills are transferable, so I don't mean here to dismiss his opinion based purely on his specialism (which would in any case be highly hypocritical of me); nevertheless, it may be useful to compare with other perspectives from those with more background in studying constitutional law. Here is specifically Sir Ernest's advice:
https:/
Here is the Office of Speaker's Counsel's comments:
https:/
And here is Mark Elliot's (Elliot is Professor of Public Law at Cambridge)
https:/
It is those that we should be discussing, independently of who on this site first provides a link to them.
Finally, then: as Mr. Barrett himself said at several points in the video, it's important for barristers to be objective and to focus on facts. Why, then, was he not and did he not? By presenting only one side of the legal argument as if it were definitive, he failed to be objective; by omitting several key facts, he failed to focus on all the facts of the story; and, by refusing to engage with the alternative perspectives linked to above, those who uncritically promote the video are making the same errors.
I'm actually not, unless it's something that started at some point on Friday. Still, I'm not complaining, and Naomi is of course entitled to not reply to me or any other member if she so wishes.
On the other hand, my comment yesterday at 8:32 doesn't includes much input that could reasonably be described as my own opinion. Instead it:
a) cites (and quotes verbatim from) a report from the Privileges Committee, which addresses many of the points in the video;
b) makes clear that the Committee took legal advice themselves, including from the Speaker's Office;
c) points out one easily-verifiable fact about Pannick's impartiality in this context, omitted from OG's video link;
d) Points out that the ultimate arbiter is Parliament as a whole, in a vote that will be held on Monday.
What it doesn't do is:
a) comment, from my own perspective, on the merits of the legal position taken by either the video or the Committee's response to Lord Pannick's submissions (merely confining myself, as stated above, to noting that the Committee had also taken legal advice from multiple sources);
b) comment, from my own perspective, on the merits of any other (non-legal) opinions expressed in the video.
In that sense, in not entering into a discussion about this based on who posted it, you're refusing to engage, not with me, but with substantive legal and factual aspects of the case. As far as the legal aspects go, it goes without saying that I am no authority compared with either Lord Pannick or Mr. Barrett from the video. But the Office of Speaker's Counsel, and Sir Ernest Ryder, presumably *are*. And as far as the factual aspects go, it's easy for anybody to verify that Lord Pannick was part of Johnson's legal team throughout the investigation, and therefore not impartial or "non-partisan".
Note that Mr. Barrett is a barrister specialising in financial and commercial law, rather than constitutional law. I would expect that many skills are transferable, so I don't mean here to dismiss his opinion based purely on his specialism (which would in any case be highly hypocritical of me); nevertheless, it may be useful to compare with other perspectives from those with more background in studying constitutional law. Here is specifically Sir Ernest's advice:
https:/
Here is the Office of Speaker's Counsel's comments:
https:/
And here is Mark Elliot's (Elliot is Professor of Public Law at Cambridge)
https:/
It is those that we should be discussing, independently of who on this site first provides a link to them.
Finally, then: as Mr. Barrett himself said at several points in the video, it's important for barristers to be objective and to focus on facts. Why, then, was he not and did he not? By presenting only one side of the legal argument as if it were definitive, he failed to be objective; by omitting several key facts, he failed to focus on all the facts of the story; and, by refusing to engage with the alternative perspectives linked to above, those who uncritically promote the video are making the same errors.
Naomi is of course entitled to not reply to me or any other member if she so wishes.
it is her deletions of people she doesnt like, we object to
anyway Clare thanks for your exhaustive analysis
I found the docs themselves very turgid...
Pannick and Pobjoy I seems to have been written in a hurry on the jarn ! I have yet to tackle II III and IV
I anticipate "Pannick, don't - the finale!"
it is her deletions of people she doesnt like, we object to
anyway Clare thanks for your exhaustive analysis
I found the docs themselves very turgid...
Pannick and Pobjoy I seems to have been written in a hurry on the jarn ! I have yet to tackle II III and IV
I anticipate "Pannick, don't - the finale!"
By presenting only one side of the legal argument as if it were definitive, he failed to be objective;
and was trying a few points on
is adversial - normal mode for lawyers - but this was inquisitive. Like coroners courts, and I found myself in Boris-mode " he MUST know this, surely?" - aslo seen in public inquiries
and you have an ex Law Lord saying there MUST be separation of investigation, proposing the case and the jury ( and judge), when he should know in Employment Law they are frequently run together and so CANNOT be said to be a general requirement.
and was trying a few points on
is adversial - normal mode for lawyers - but this was inquisitive. Like coroners courts, and I found myself in Boris-mode " he MUST know this, surely?" - aslo seen in public inquiries
and you have an ex Law Lord saying there MUST be separation of investigation, proposing the case and the jury ( and judge), when he should know in Employment Law they are frequently run together and so CANNOT be said to be a general requirement.
PP, I haven’t deleted anyone - whether I like them or not. I do delete posts that blatantly break the rules because that’s what I’m asked to do but there are about 16 mods and in the main you have no idea who deletes posts and neither do I so stop making unfounded assumptions and unfounded accusations. You do it constantly, it causes unnecessary bad feeling - and that is detrimental to the site.
ClareTGold, lunch was served so sorry for the delay. I’ve told you several times why I do not interact with you on some topics - the last time on this thread - but in short, your arguments are such - eg (among other things) that democracy doesn’t mean what I think it means - that for me they’ve lost credibility. In addition the example above confirms to me that you assume you’re talking to fools - and that attitude is, for me, unacceptable.
That's what I thought it was, although on the other hand -- again -- that means that you aren't engaging with the substance in a particular case. It smacks of an excuse, really.
As for that comment, it was made several years ago, in a completely different context, and to the extent that it says anything about my mindset it only says something about it at the time of the comment, rather than in general.
As for whether or not my arguments have lost credibility, coming from you that feels almost like a badge of honour. In any case, arguments have credibility, or not, based on their substance, rather than on who advances them. I'll invite you again to engage with the substance of the points made in the links I've provided, which are, after all, to multiple sources that are not me.
As for that comment, it was made several years ago, in a completely different context, and to the extent that it says anything about my mindset it only says something about it at the time of the comment, rather than in general.
As for whether or not my arguments have lost credibility, coming from you that feels almost like a badge of honour. In any case, arguments have credibility, or not, based on their substance, rather than on who advances them. I'll invite you again to engage with the substance of the points made in the links I've provided, which are, after all, to multiple sources that are not me.
For example, take this passage from Mark Elliot's comments. I haven't changed them apart from a little extra spacing.
https:/
// The Committee is not subject to the procedural rules referred to by Pannick and Pobjoy quite simply because it operates in a constitutional realm — the parliamentary realm — to which the relevant legal standards are wholly inapplicable. Ultimately, therefore, the charge that appears to be directed at the Committee is that it is declining to play by the rules of a game that it is not in the first place playing. The Committee is engaged in a political process as distinct from the sort of process that is amenable to judicial review and the legal standards to which such processes must adhere.
It follows that as a parliamentary committee, the procedure of the Committee of Privileges is a parliamentary matter. It is not a legal matter or a matter for the courts, and using as a yardstick the rules of due process that would apply to it if it were to be a public body subject to judicial review is neither here nor there.
None of this is to suggest that the process the Committee has decided to adopt is ‘correct’ (or that the Committee should not act fairly). But what amounts to an appropriate and fair process is highly context dependent. Indeed, this is a point that courts, in judicial review cases, themselves recognise and make a great deal of. This point, in turn, exposes a further difficulty with Pannick and Pobjoy’s argument: they appear to presuppose that if, in a parallel universe, a court were to adjudicate in judicial review proceedings on whether the Committee of Privileges had acted unlawfully, the court would apply to that Committee the very same procedural standards that apply in other contexts. This fails to acknowledge that the courts have — for good reasons — never had occasion to rule on what sort of procedural standards ought to be followed by parliamentary committees, and simply assumes, without reasoned justification, that a court would make no allowance for the fact it would be addressing the question of procedural fairness in an entirely unfamiliar context that differs fundamentally from the contexts in which courts normally address such matters.
The key point, however, is that what constitutes an appropriate process in this context is a political question for the Committee of Privileges and Parliament, not a question that can or should be resolved by pointing out that the Committee proposes to operate inconsistently with one particular set of legal standards that have no application to it in the first place. //
This is not, in any sense, my argument. It's Prof. Mark Elliot's analysis, and it's *this* to which I invite you to reply. Not to what I've said. My personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
https:/
// The Committee is not subject to the procedural rules referred to by Pannick and Pobjoy quite simply because it operates in a constitutional realm — the parliamentary realm — to which the relevant legal standards are wholly inapplicable. Ultimately, therefore, the charge that appears to be directed at the Committee is that it is declining to play by the rules of a game that it is not in the first place playing. The Committee is engaged in a political process as distinct from the sort of process that is amenable to judicial review and the legal standards to which such processes must adhere.
It follows that as a parliamentary committee, the procedure of the Committee of Privileges is a parliamentary matter. It is not a legal matter or a matter for the courts, and using as a yardstick the rules of due process that would apply to it if it were to be a public body subject to judicial review is neither here nor there.
None of this is to suggest that the process the Committee has decided to adopt is ‘correct’ (or that the Committee should not act fairly). But what amounts to an appropriate and fair process is highly context dependent. Indeed, this is a point that courts, in judicial review cases, themselves recognise and make a great deal of. This point, in turn, exposes a further difficulty with Pannick and Pobjoy’s argument: they appear to presuppose that if, in a parallel universe, a court were to adjudicate in judicial review proceedings on whether the Committee of Privileges had acted unlawfully, the court would apply to that Committee the very same procedural standards that apply in other contexts. This fails to acknowledge that the courts have — for good reasons — never had occasion to rule on what sort of procedural standards ought to be followed by parliamentary committees, and simply assumes, without reasoned justification, that a court would make no allowance for the fact it would be addressing the question of procedural fairness in an entirely unfamiliar context that differs fundamentally from the contexts in which courts normally address such matters.
The key point, however, is that what constitutes an appropriate process in this context is a political question for the Committee of Privileges and Parliament, not a question that can or should be resolved by pointing out that the Committee proposes to operate inconsistently with one particular set of legal standards that have no application to it in the first place. //
This is not, in any sense, my argument. It's Prof. Mark Elliot's analysis, and it's *this* to which I invite you to reply. Not to what I've said. My personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
Why are you not prepared to debate or reply to a comment which states facts, regardless of who made it? You”re reasoning is child like and quite frankly, bizarre.
Looks like ClareT is as baffled by your equally bizarre statement that they know why you won’t debate with them. Would you like to remind us, in an adult way, why you won’t ?
Looks like ClareT is as baffled by your equally bizarre statement that they know why you won’t debate with them. Would you like to remind us, in an adult way, why you won’t ?
There were seven people on the committee. Four were Tories - a majority. All seven were unanimous, including all four Tories.
The committee's report lays down 14 different ways that Boris Johnson lied to Parliament. It was laid down in some detail.
Boris Johnson was the PM when the committee was set up, with no complaints then - only when he wasn't happy with the results.
We can now see another video showing how Tories were partying leading up to Christmas 2020.
Of anyone could actually dispute any or all of the actual 14 different ways that Johnson lied, then they haven't managed to do it yet. Everything else is just hot air.
And, of course, it's difficult to dispute it if you don't actually have the ability to gather evidence like the committee did.
The committee's report lays down 14 different ways that Boris Johnson lied to Parliament. It was laid down in some detail.
Boris Johnson was the PM when the committee was set up, with no complaints then - only when he wasn't happy with the results.
We can now see another video showing how Tories were partying leading up to Christmas 2020.
Of anyone could actually dispute any or all of the actual 14 different ways that Johnson lied, then they haven't managed to do it yet. Everything else is just hot air.
And, of course, it's difficult to dispute it if you don't actually have the ability to gather evidence like the committee did.
The latest video they know they are breaking the rules, but they laugh it off.
They (and Boris) regarded themselves as elite and above the law.
People won’t forget easily. They followed the rules and our leaders looked down on them and partied while the rest of us suffered.
Not a good image to easily ignore.
They (and Boris) regarded themselves as elite and above the law.
People won’t forget easily. They followed the rules and our leaders looked down on them and partied while the rest of us suffered.
Not a good image to easily ignore.
And Charlotte Owen with a peerage ... why??? You do have to wonder ...
https:/
https:/
The closest we'll get is presumably the comment at 13:51 today, which starts with an assertion that I already don't entirely recognise. It may be true, although what strikes me as odd is that for all that Naomi has apparently said "several times why I do not interact with you", it never seems to stop her from constantly doing so. I knew, to be sure, that Naomi's opinion of me is unfavourable (understatement), but if this has led her to stop interacting with me then I've had a hard time noticing the difference.
Also, it seems to stem in part from a misconception. I shouldn't have to respond to the accusation that I "assume [I'm] talking to fools", but it's not true, never has been, and never will be, and it's on Naomi to revise her position on this, rather than on me to continually have to deny it.
This leaves the cited example, that I told Naomi that "democracy doesn't mean what [she] thinks it means". The problem is that I no longer remember whether I said this exactly -- although, I am fairly sure that I will have said something similar, so I am not accusing Naomi of making it up; I no longer remember when it was said, nor the context in which I said it, nor the comment it was in reply to; nor the wider context of my emotional and mental state at the time. If Naomi happens to know where the original comment is, I'd be grateful, but if not then I don't want her to trouble herself to dig it back up. Certainly, it will have been in one of the multiple Brexit arguments at around the 2016-2018 period, but there are so many of those, and it's hard to narrow down. I did, one time at least, post a long reply to it here, which possibly provides more background (although note that even then I couldn't recall exactly what Naomi was referring to): https:/
Evidently, the plea that I made at the end of that comment linked above has fallen on deaf ears. On the other hand, that means that Naomi never did find anything new to say.
Also, it seems to stem in part from a misconception. I shouldn't have to respond to the accusation that I "assume [I'm] talking to fools", but it's not true, never has been, and never will be, and it's on Naomi to revise her position on this, rather than on me to continually have to deny it.
This leaves the cited example, that I told Naomi that "democracy doesn't mean what [she] thinks it means". The problem is that I no longer remember whether I said this exactly -- although, I am fairly sure that I will have said something similar, so I am not accusing Naomi of making it up; I no longer remember when it was said, nor the context in which I said it, nor the comment it was in reply to; nor the wider context of my emotional and mental state at the time. If Naomi happens to know where the original comment is, I'd be grateful, but if not then I don't want her to trouble herself to dig it back up. Certainly, it will have been in one of the multiple Brexit arguments at around the 2016-2018 period, but there are so many of those, and it's hard to narrow down. I did, one time at least, post a long reply to it here, which possibly provides more background (although note that even then I couldn't recall exactly what Naomi was referring to): https:/
Evidently, the plea that I made at the end of that comment linked above has fallen on deaf ears. On the other hand, that means that Naomi never did find anything new to say.
Latest Posts
Will Starmer - If He Wins - Be A Part...
News12 mins ago
Animals & Nature12 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Is This The Worst Ever Conservative...
News21 mins ago
Crosswords24 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.