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 ;)

[Untitled]

"Not even from, or maybe especially not from those who claimed to be Brexiteers but clearly don't act as such."

perhaps i have misunderstood you but why should being a brexiteer translate to unconditional support for boris johnson? i doubt that he ever really believed in it at all!!

[Hymie]

To be a Tory candidate standing for the 2019 election, they had to pledge allegiance to all things Boris and Brexit.

Clearly many never believed Brexit would work, any more than me – but hey, a politician will say and do anything to enrich themselves.

I too am pretty sure Boris never believed in Brexit, it was just his best route to a shot at becoming Prime Minister.

[Hymie]

Interestingly Lord Heseltine thinks Boris being shown to be a complete liar (shock horror – who would have thought that), will help the EU re-join campaign; with Boris having been one of the chief liars in the Brexit debate.

[Old_Geezer]

"why should being a brexiteer translate to unconditional support for boris johnson"

It needn't. But since Brexiteers believed in democracy and Boris upheld that, no matter what reason one might believe in, they should respect him as one of the few worthy politicians at this time.

[Old_Geezer]

https://youtu.be/9F-Cb8w-t9M

For your edification ;-)

[Peter Pedant]

yeah OK there was cross party support ( for Brexit) all related to lies like £350m and regain sovereignitye
( i e emotional and not rational - which our leaders failed to recognise apparently)

yes Boris didnt care
and the very night before ....
drew up two sides of A4 as he ws taught to do in school and uni
one was - - lets get Brexit done
and the other was - EU or die!

and ( tossed a coin and) Brexit won....

Of course, if Boris says, "that is definitely NOT true, vae victis etc" considering what a liar he has proved to be, I wd regard the story as settled

[Old_Geezer]

Are folk still pushing the old chestnut about the £350m being lies, despite having it explained to them umpteen times ? Heck, that was sad to see/hear even at the time.

[naomi24]

OG, excellent link. I await reactions.

[naomi24]

^… if any are forthcoming.

[ToraToraTora]

Looks like PP is suffering from RBID:
https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Body-and-Soul/Question1839846.html

[Hymie]

How anyone can believe that all lockdown rules were followed – when the person making that claim (Boris) was at a party with a group of others drinking, is beyond me (and the Privileges Committee agrees). And not only that, but photographs taken at the party were published in national newspapers.

[Hymie]

If you read Lord Pannick KC and Jason Pobjoy’s latest opinion on the Privileges Committee’s findings against Boris – all of it is based on court procedures and case findings examples of where they believe the Committee failed to follow accepted legal process.

One of the main claims by Pannick and Pobjoy is that those questioning Boris (the Committee members) were the same people who were passing judgement – which would not be permitted in a British court of law.

But the Privileges Committee is not a court of law, its purpose is to investigate matters referred to it by the House of Commons. Those appearing before the Committee are expected to tell the truth (which Boris clearly did not).

In the nonsense youtube link provided by OG, the supposed lawyer is effectively making the same arguments as Pannick and Pobjoy, that the Committee failed to follow legal process, as required in a court of law – which it is not required to do.

Because the Committee did not follow accepted legal process (as required in a court of law) many think they can call the Committee a ‘kangaroo court’, me thinks that those MPs who do so, could soon come to regret doing so.

[Old_Geezer]

If you rewatch it, he does state that it isn't a court of law, but points out that, even outside such a court, to be credible, rules need to be consistent. It's rather off to realise the difficulty (impossibility ?) of proving misdoing and so changing the normally/commonly used phrases in the charge brought so that the resultant charge can be met by the committee's opinion alone. It's comparable to making it up as you go along in order to get the verdict you're looking for. To me, that smacks of learning from the EU rulebook. And coments about kangaroos suddenly seem not to be out of place.

[Untitled]

hymie is correct… the committee was concerned with the rules of the house of commons as an institution and those rules are enforced by the house of commons itself on the recommendation of a panel of its own members… it is not a court of law and did not portray itself as one

the rules of the house of commons say that if you intentionally mislead the house you get suspended… and boris johnson did in fact mislead the house of commons deliberately

[Old_Geezer]

Again, "intentionally". That was not proved. Feel free to rewatch the video.

[Hymie]

In OG nonsense youtube video, the supposed lawyer makes the argument that if he misdirects someone to a supermarket (when he did not know the location/route to the supermarket), then he was not intentionally misleading the person.

But he does not explain that if he attended a party with drinks (which was not allowed by the lockdown rules), and he then makes a statement in the House of Commons that no lockdown rules were broken – that he is not intentionally misleading the House (he is as sure as hell doing so deliberately).

[emeritus]

Hymie accusing others of posting nonsense you tube links. Give it a rest Hymie yours are without doubt more nonsensical than
any others I’ve seen

[maggiebee]

If that man fell in sharn he would come up smelling of roses.

[Peter Pedant]

no or yes - hymie - hi me !
You are quite right, alot of the blind discussion here is considered in the report of the ctee and its many addenda

I think p39 stipulates what is fair
it is accepted that one can fair even if the inquisitors sit in judgement ( er determination,finding that is)

many instances of 'this is not a court of law' - - Yes ! but if it were, and all the usual points are raised again

I would expect Lord Pannick ( whose brayne apparently is the size of Jupiter) to take this into account. - there are a few other opinions all squabbling amongst themselves

[Hymie]

The youtube video posted by OG is nonsense for the reasons stated – the lawyer is arguing that the Privileges Committee is a fault for not following accepted legal practices.

As I have explained, they are not required to do so.

In relation to the videos that I post, you are welcome to claim they are nonsense – but that is all many on AB do, they don’t point out what is nonsense within them (many of the videos demonstrating what an absolute disaster Brexit is for the UK).