If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
It is not an offence against free speech to disapprove of something that someone says.
No, its not.
So disapprove of Mogg all you like. I do. I can't stand Mogg.
If there's talk of censoring him though, of punishing him, that's another matter.
Even if what he said was wrong, even if it was pigheaded, even if it was stupid, he should still have the right to say it.
No-one is taking away the right of him to speak - but if that speech is detrimental to British democracy and its institutions, then those institutions have every right to create consequences for that attack on them. No-one is suggesting that he would be thrown in jail, or fined, or anything like that, but an attack on the normal functioning of democracy in Britain should not pass without consequence.
And who determines if speech is "detrimental to British democracy and its institutions"? Who gets to abuse that, if that is permitted?
You? The Prime Minister? A majority of the Commons?
The whole point of free speech is that its not restricted, that detrimental speech is not just allowed but protected.
This is your best argument on this subject, but I think I have an answer for you. Courts judge contempt of court, so firstly there's precedent for this. Secondly, there's a higher power than courts in this country, and that's parliament. If a court goes seriously egregiously wrong a final backstop to its waywardness is an act of parliament. If we think of this committee as a court -- and I'm by no means certain we should -- then it is similarly subordinate to parliament. Parliament can wind up this committee, change its composition and so on. The committee serves at the pleasure of parliament.
Of course tyranny by parliament is possible. But that's already a theoretical problem we must wrangle with even absent of all this stuff about contempt and defamation and so on. Your "who watches the watchmen" challenge is valid, but the answer is "parliament".
Except that I don't believe this would be contempt of court in a normal court either though? Criticising courts is acceptable and is free speech.
And it has been deemed unconstitutional in the USA and a violation of free speech there too.
So no, going off the courts, it seems courts are open to criticism, and that criticism is not contempt of court, even scandalous criticism anymore.
Whether this particular case ought to be thought of as a contempt-like offence is not something I've weighed in on. On balance I think JRM is saying foolish and slightly dangerous things, but I don't feel inclined to say he should be punished for it.
I merely contend that the type of thing he's saying could, if serious enough in the judgement of the "court", attract some kind of censure. I'm not saying he should be punished. I'm saying that I'm ok with the idea of that being available as an option.
Can it attract censure? What evidence is there of that?
Courts have been routinely criticised, including on the front pages of news papers and more. If calling the judiciary "Enemies of the People" is not Contempt of Court, then why would calling the Privilege Committee "a kangaroo court" be Contempt?
The crime of contempt for criticising courts has been explicitly abolished by primary legislation. It can't attract censure, its free speech. Protected free speech. As it should be.
There is no concept of protected free speech in the law of England and Wales.
Political speech is protected by the European Convention of Human Rights, which last I checked we haven't left.
It is not an offence against free speech to disapprove of something that someone says.
No, its not.
So disapprove of Mogg all you like. I do. I can't stand Mogg.
If there's talk of censoring him though, of punishing him, that's another matter.
Even if what he said was wrong, even if it was pigheaded, even if it was stupid, he should still have the right to say it.
No-one is taking away the right of him to speak - but if that speech is detrimental to British democracy and its institutions, then those institutions have every right to create consequences for that attack on them. No-one is suggesting that he would be thrown in jail, or fined, or anything like that, but an attack on the normal functioning of democracy in Britain should not pass without consequence.
And who determines if speech is "detrimental to British democracy and its institutions"? Who gets to abuse that, if that is permitted?
You? The Prime Minister? A majority of the Commons?
The whole point of free speech is that its not restricted, that detrimental speech is not just allowed but protected.
This is your best argument on this subject, but I think I have an answer for you. Courts judge contempt of court, so firstly there's precedent for this. Secondly, there's a higher power than courts in this country, and that's parliament. If a court goes seriously egregiously wrong a final backstop to its waywardness is an act of parliament. If we think of this committee as a court -- and I'm by no means certain we should -- then it is similarly subordinate to parliament. Parliament can wind up this committee, change its composition and so on. The committee serves at the pleasure of parliament.
Of course tyranny by parliament is possible. But that's already a theoretical problem we must wrangle with even absent of all this stuff about contempt and defamation and so on. Your "who watches the watchmen" challenge is valid, but the answer is "parliament".
Except that I don't believe this would be contempt of court in a normal court either though? Criticising courts is acceptable and is free speech.
And it has been deemed unconstitutional in the USA and a violation of free speech there too.
So no, going off the courts, it seems courts are open to criticism, and that criticism is not contempt of court, even scandalous criticism anymore.
Whether this particular case ought to be thought of as a contempt-like offence is not something I've weighed in on. On balance I think JRM is saying foolish and slightly dangerous things, but I don't feel inclined to say he should be punished for it.
I merely contend that the type of thing he's saying could, if serious enough in the judgement of the "court", attract some kind of censure. I'm not saying he should be punished. I'm saying that I'm ok with the idea of that being available as an option.
Can it attract censure? What evidence is there of that?
Courts have been routinely criticised, including on the front pages of news papers and more. If calling the judiciary "Enemies of the People" is not Contempt of Court, then why would calling the Privilege Committee "a kangaroo court" be Contempt?
The crime of contempt for criticising courts has been explicitly abolished by primary legislation. It can't attract censure, its free speech. Protected free speech. As it should be.
There is no concept of protected free speech in the law of England and Wales.
Political speech is protected by the European Convention of Human Rights, which last I checked we haven't left.
There is no concept of political speech in the Convention. Your political speech is no more protected than your opinions on Ed Sheeran.
The European Court of Human Rights disagrees with you, its regularly made a distinction between political speech and others.
Indeed the Council of Europe says this: Such protection is not restricted to “true” statements; it applies in particular to political speech and debate on questions of public interest
It is not an offence against free speech to disapprove of something that someone says.
No, its not.
So disapprove of Mogg all you like. I do. I can't stand Mogg.
If there's talk of censoring him though, of punishing him, that's another matter.
Even if what he said was wrong, even if it was pigheaded, even if it was stupid, he should still have the right to say it.
No-one is taking away the right of him to speak - but if that speech is detrimental to British democracy and its institutions, then those institutions have every right to create consequences for that attack on them. No-one is suggesting that he would be thrown in jail, or fined, or anything like that, but an attack on the normal functioning of democracy in Britain should not pass without consequence.
And who determines if speech is "detrimental to British democracy and its institutions"? Who gets to abuse that, if that is permitted?
You? The Prime Minister? A majority of the Commons?
The whole point of free speech is that its not restricted, that detrimental speech is not just allowed but protected.
This is your best argument on this subject, but I think I have an answer for you. Courts judge contempt of court, so firstly there's precedent for this. Secondly, there's a higher power than courts in this country, and that's parliament. If a court goes seriously egregiously wrong a final backstop to its waywardness is an act of parliament. If we think of this committee as a court -- and I'm by no means certain we should -- then it is similarly subordinate to parliament. Parliament can wind up this committee, change its composition and so on. The committee serves at the pleasure of parliament.
Of course tyranny by parliament is possible. But that's already a theoretical problem we must wrangle with even absent of all this stuff about contempt and defamation and so on. Your "who watches the watchmen" challenge is valid, but the answer is "parliament".
Except that I don't believe this would be contempt of court in a normal court either though? Criticising courts is acceptable and is free speech.
And it has been deemed unconstitutional in the USA and a violation of free speech there too.
So no, going off the courts, it seems courts are open to criticism, and that criticism is not contempt of court, even scandalous criticism anymore.
Whether this particular case ought to be thought of as a contempt-like offence is not something I've weighed in on. On balance I think JRM is saying foolish and slightly dangerous things, but I don't feel inclined to say he should be punished for it.
I merely contend that the type of thing he's saying could, if serious enough in the judgement of the "court", attract some kind of censure. I'm not saying he should be punished. I'm saying that I'm ok with the idea of that being available as an option.
Can it attract censure? What evidence is there of that?
Courts have been routinely criticised, including on the front pages of news papers and more. If calling the judiciary "Enemies of the People" is not Contempt of Court, then why would calling the Privilege Committee "a kangaroo court" be Contempt?
The crime of contempt for criticising courts has been explicitly abolished by primary legislation. It can't attract censure, its free speech. Protected free speech. As it should be.
There is no concept of protected free speech in the law of England and Wales.
Political speech is protected by the European Convention of Human Rights, which last I checked we haven't left.
But which you want to leave?
No I don't.
But I'd have no objection to us leaving it and replacing it with a British equivalent, answerable to Parliament.
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
It is not an offence against free speech to disapprove of something that someone says.
No, its not.
So disapprove of Mogg all you like. I do. I can't stand Mogg.
If there's talk of censoring him though, of punishing him, that's another matter.
Even if what he said was wrong, even if it was pigheaded, even if it was stupid, he should still have the right to say it.
No-one is taking away the right of him to speak - but if that speech is detrimental to British democracy and its institutions, then those institutions have every right to create consequences for that attack on them. No-one is suggesting that he would be thrown in jail, or fined, or anything like that, but an attack on the normal functioning of democracy in Britain should not pass without consequence.
And who determines if speech is "detrimental to British democracy and its institutions"? Who gets to abuse that, if that is permitted?
You? The Prime Minister? A majority of the Commons?
The whole point of free speech is that its not restricted, that detrimental speech is not just allowed but protected.
This is your best argument on this subject, but I think I have an answer for you. Courts judge contempt of court, so firstly there's precedent for this. Secondly, there's a higher power than courts in this country, and that's parliament. If a court goes seriously egregiously wrong a final backstop to its waywardness is an act of parliament. If we think of this committee as a court -- and I'm by no means certain we should -- then it is similarly subordinate to parliament. Parliament can wind up this committee, change its composition and so on. The committee serves at the pleasure of parliament.
Of course tyranny by parliament is possible. But that's already a theoretical problem we must wrangle with even absent of all this stuff about contempt and defamation and so on. Your "who watches the watchmen" challenge is valid, but the answer is "parliament".
Except that I don't believe this would be contempt of court in a normal court either though? Criticising courts is acceptable and is free speech.
And it has been deemed unconstitutional in the USA and a violation of free speech there too.
So no, going off the courts, it seems courts are open to criticism, and that criticism is not contempt of court, even scandalous criticism anymore.
Whether this particular case ought to be thought of as a contempt-like offence is not something I've weighed in on. On balance I think JRM is saying foolish and slightly dangerous things, but I don't feel inclined to say he should be punished for it.
I merely contend that the type of thing he's saying could, if serious enough in the judgement of the "court", attract some kind of censure. I'm not saying he should be punished. I'm saying that I'm ok with the idea of that being available as an option.
Can it attract censure? What evidence is there of that?
Courts have been routinely criticised, including on the front pages of news papers and more. If calling the judiciary "Enemies of the People" is not Contempt of Court, then why would calling the Privilege Committee "a kangaroo court" be Contempt?
The crime of contempt for criticising courts has been explicitly abolished by primary legislation. It can't attract censure, its free speech. Protected free speech. As it should be.
Ah, so it looks like you're right.
In which case modify everything I've been saying to "should". My feeling is that scandalising the court should still be a criminal offence. But in all the matters where I've said "could", that was wrong.
Not a big deal, since I didn't think JRM should be censured anyway and the point of principle I was making is one I would still defend: I would bring back that law.
This is problem with not being a lawyer. Something could disappear off the books a decade ago but you might never have noticed.
It is not an offence against free speech to disapprove of something that someone says.
No, its not.
So disapprove of Mogg all you like. I do. I can't stand Mogg.
If there's talk of censoring him though, of punishing him, that's another matter.
Even if what he said was wrong, even if it was pigheaded, even if it was stupid, he should still have the right to say it.
No-one is taking away the right of him to speak - but if that speech is detrimental to British democracy and its institutions, then those institutions have every right to create consequences for that attack on them. No-one is suggesting that he would be thrown in jail, or fined, or anything like that, but an attack on the normal functioning of democracy in Britain should not pass without consequence.
And who determines if speech is "detrimental to British democracy and its institutions"? Who gets to abuse that, if that is permitted?
You? The Prime Minister? A majority of the Commons?
The whole point of free speech is that its not restricted, that detrimental speech is not just allowed but protected.
This is your best argument on this subject, but I think I have an answer for you. Courts judge contempt of court, so firstly there's precedent for this. Secondly, there's a higher power than courts in this country, and that's parliament. If a court goes seriously egregiously wrong a final backstop to its waywardness is an act of parliament. If we think of this committee as a court -- and I'm by no means certain we should -- then it is similarly subordinate to parliament. Parliament can wind up this committee, change its composition and so on. The committee serves at the pleasure of parliament.
Of course tyranny by parliament is possible. But that's already a theoretical problem we must wrangle with even absent of all this stuff about contempt and defamation and so on. Your "who watches the watchmen" challenge is valid, but the answer is "parliament".
Except that I don't believe this would be contempt of court in a normal court either though? Criticising courts is acceptable and is free speech.
And it has been deemed unconstitutional in the USA and a violation of free speech there too.
So no, going off the courts, it seems courts are open to criticism, and that criticism is not contempt of court, even scandalous criticism anymore.
Whether this particular case ought to be thought of as a contempt-like offence is not something I've weighed in on. On balance I think JRM is saying foolish and slightly dangerous things, but I don't feel inclined to say he should be punished for it.
I merely contend that the type of thing he's saying could, if serious enough in the judgement of the "court", attract some kind of censure. I'm not saying he should be punished. I'm saying that I'm ok with the idea of that being available as an option.
Can it attract censure? What evidence is there of that?
Courts have been routinely criticised, including on the front pages of news papers and more. If calling the judiciary "Enemies of the People" is not Contempt of Court, then why would calling the Privilege Committee "a kangaroo court" be Contempt?
The crime of contempt for criticising courts has been explicitly abolished by primary legislation. It can't attract censure, its free speech. Protected free speech. As it should be.
There is no concept of protected free speech in the law of England and Wales.
Political speech is protected by the European Convention of Human Rights, which last I checked we haven't left.
There is no concept of political speech in the Convention. Your political speech is no more protected than your opinions on Ed Sheeran.
The European Court of Human Rights disagrees with you, its regularly made a distinction between political speech and others.
Indeed the Council of Europe says this: Such protection is not restricted to “true” statements; it applies in particular to political speech and debate on questions of public interest
Bart declares victory and goes home, still not mentioning whether Mogg would deserve muh free speech if he shouted CORRUPTION over every Commons debate for the next eighteen months.
Let’s be honest here. If a committee finds me guilty of wearing a dirty tee with tikka masala spilt down the front of it, and publicly publish I am a very naughty girl for this - but those on the committee have dirty tee with curry spilt down the front too, surely they have zero right or qualification to tell the world I’m naughty? I, and yourselves, should be able to refer to them as kangaroo’s in dirty t-shirts, without them sanctioning us for pointing that out, whenever it’s a matter of fact that are. That’s the truth isn’t it?
This report has to be binned now, not published, and decide if it’s worth pursuing again, now the committee has been left in a position they can’t possibly pass judgement when guilty of the same crimes at the heart of it.
The accusations haven’t been proved and it does seem rather strange for this to land the day before the report is published.
I take on board both those points. But you would agree fairness needs to be seen to be done in a matter of this sort.
How can you support a judge sentencing a defendant to the stocks for visiting a brothel, when the judge visits brothels? That’s just absolutely wrong. That’s not any sort of justice. In fact such a warped idea of a court could be a greater crime, than what the accused is accused of.
I can call this right because I am wonderfully balanced in my political views and only interested in being fair to absolutely everyone, whilst so many of you are so biased and bent to be able to play fair or even see where your bent means you are getting it wrong.
Starmer needs to write to Harman tonight, telling her she can’t publish tomorow until this claim is cleared up one way or the other. Otherwise his senior Labour MP might be shredding fairness by publishing, and that would really have repercussions for Labour if they pressed on against a Tory when it would have been so simple and quick to run a check - a mixture of asking Boris to provide evidence, and asking Bernard if he has anything to declare before signing off.
Do you see my point? It’s a split committee with Bernard’s as the decisive vote. With such a powerful principle of fairness at stake, just briefly pause to check to avoid making a horrendous mistake. What’s wrong with that;
Since the subject of cash v cashless has once again reared its ugly head, perhaps apt for this bit of info:
This morning, I asked one of my local vendors of our local equivalent of "The Big Issue" which is "Real Change'' ($2 for each weekly issue) IF he could accept cashless payment.
Yes, via an app called Venmo. Showed me the app thingy on his Real Change ID card, which I'd not noticed before. Said that they started using the app during the pandemic when many customers did not want to handle cash.
He estimated by maybe as much as 25% of his sales were currently cashless. Tending to be younger than average customer.
Liked the fact that vendors got 100% of payments via app, just like cash. (They pay the Real Change organization up front for the papers they peddle.)
Also said that many who use the app automatically round up their payment, say to $5. Of course, many cash customers also give a bit extra (I usual do $3) but appears its more likely for someone using their app, than another digging a few bucks out of their wallet.
Bart declares victory and goes home, still not mentioning whether Mogg would deserve muh free speech if he shouted CORRUPTION over every Commons debate for the next eighteen months.
I missed that comment but I've seen this so I'll answer before going to bed.
I would draw a distinction between the Speaker suspending an MP for being actively disruptive during a debate, and some MPs censuring another MP for saying something critical of them.
Being actively disruptive is comparable to contempt of court, the actual contempt of court that still exists and is enforced in this country.
What Mogg did wasn't that. It was surely equivalent to scandalising the court, which has not been enforced since the 1930s and was explicitly removed as contempt of court by primary legislation a decade ago.
So complete apples and oranges.
Being disruptive during a debate is not OK. Being critical of anyone you wish to criticise is, and is protected as privilege during a debate too.
Let’s be honest here. If a committee finds me guilty of wearing a dirty tee with tikka masala spilt down the front of it, and publicly publish I am a very naughty girl for this - but those on the committee have dirty tee with curry spilt down the front too, surely they have zero right or qualification to tell the world I’m naughty? I, and yourselves, should be able to refer to them as kangaroo’s in dirty t-shirts, without them sanctioning us for pointing that out, whenever it’s a matter of fact that are. That’s the truth isn’t it?
This report has to be binned now, not published, and decide if it’s worth pursuing again, now the committee has been left in a position they can’t possibly pass judgement when guilty of the same crimes at the heart of it.
Having read this twice - Is this Hendricks or Monkey 47 talking?
Let’s be dead sober serious here. How can you support a judge sentencing a defendant to the stocks for visiting a brothel, when the judge visits brothels? The very fundamental princeypulls of UK justice hang in the balance here, like Dick Turpin on the gallows.
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling him to resign his seat and a by election to be held there before the next general election without him dying or being expelled. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling a by election to be held in his seat before the next general election without him dying. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
You are going to make an extraordinary MP one day HY.
Let’s be honest here. If a committee finds me guilty of wearing a dirty tee with tikka masala spilt down the front of it, and publicly publish I am a very naughty girl for this - but those on the committee have dirty tee with curry spilt down the front too, surely they have zero right or qualification to tell the world I’m naughty? I, and yourselves, should be able to refer to them as kangaroo’s in dirty t-shirts, without them sanctioning us for pointing that out, whenever it’s a matter of fact that are. That’s the truth isn’t it?
This report has to be binned now, not published, and decide if it’s worth pursuing again, now the committee has been left in a position they can’t possibly pass judgement when guilty of the same crimes at the heart of it.
The accusations haven’t been proved and it does seem rather strange for this to land the day before the report is published.
I take on board both those points. But you would agree fairness needs to be seen to be done in a matter of this sort.
How can you support a judge sentencing a defendant to the stocks for visiting a brothel, when the judge visits brothels? That’s just absolutely wrong. That’s not any sort of justice. In fact such a warped idea of a court could be a greater crime, than what the accused is accused of.
I can call this right because I am wonderfully balanced in my political views and only interested in being fair to absolutely everyone, whilst so many of you are so biased and bent to be able to play fair or even see where your bent means you are getting it wrong.
Starmer needs to write to Harman tonight, telling her she can’t publish tomorow until this claim is cleared up one way or the other. Otherwise his senior Labour MP might be shredding fairness by publishing, and that would really have repercussions for Labour if they pressed on against a Tory when it would have been so simple and quick to run a check - a mixture of asking Boris to provide evidence, and asking Bernard if he has anything to declare before signing off.
Do you see my point? It’s a split committee with Bernard’s as the decisive vote. With such a powerful principle of fairness at stake, just briefly pause to check to avoid making a horrendous mistake. What’s wrong with that;
There’s conflicting reports . Some say it was a unanimous agreement and one report that it was split but that seemed more to do with the punishment rather than conclusions. I can’t see the report being delayed at this late stage . There’s no repercussions for Labour . The accusations are being made against a Tory .
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling him to resign his seat and a by election to be held there before the next general election without him dying. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
No he's not, not only is he not obliged to, he's not entitled to.
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling him to resign his seat and a by election to be held there before the next general election without him dying. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
No, he is not obliged to deal with his constituents, mainly because he doesn’t have any.
I’d be happy to be proven wrong, if you can show me the rules that say he does maintain a responsibility. Just think about it carefully, it’s no different when the seat is vacant due to a death.
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling him to resign his seat and a by election to be held there before the next general election without him dying. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
No he's not, not only is he not obliged to, he's not entitled to.
Let’s be honest here. If a committee finds me guilty of wearing a dirty tee with tikka masala spilt down the front of it, and publicly publish I am a very naughty girl for this - but those on the committee have dirty tee with curry spilt down the front too, surely they have zero right or qualification to tell the world I’m naughty? I, and yourselves, should be able to refer to them as kangaroo’s in dirty t-shirts, without them sanctioning us for pointing that out, whenever it’s a matter of fact that are. That’s the truth isn’t it?
This report has to be binned now, not published, and decide if it’s worth pursuing again, now the committee has been left in a position they can’t possibly pass judgement when guilty of the same crimes at the heart of it.
The accusations haven’t been proved and it does seem rather strange for this to land the day before the report is published.
I take on board both those points. But you would agree fairness needs to be seen to be done in a matter of this sort.
How can you support a judge sentencing a defendant to the stocks for visiting a brothel, when the judge visits brothels? That’s just absolutely wrong. That’s not any sort of justice. In fact such a warped idea of a court could be a greater crime, than what the accused is accused of.
I can call this right because I am wonderfully balanced in my political views and only interested in being fair to absolutely everyone, whilst so many of you are so biased and bent to be able to play fair or even see where your bent means you are getting it wrong.
Starmer needs to write to Harman tonight, telling her she can’t publish tomorow until this claim is cleared up one way or the other. Otherwise his senior Labour MP might be shredding fairness by publishing, and that would really have repercussions for Labour if they pressed on against a Tory when it would have been so simple and quick to run a check - a mixture of asking Boris to provide evidence, and asking Bernard if he has anything to declare before signing off.
Do you see my point? It’s a split committee with Bernard’s as the decisive vote. With such a powerful principle of fairness at stake, just briefly pause to check to avoid making a horrendous mistake. What’s wrong with that;
There’s conflicting reports . Some say it was a unanimous agreement and one report that it was split but that seemed more to do with the punishment rather than conclusions. I can’t see the report being delayed at this late stage . There’s no repercussions for Labour . The accusations are being made against a Tory .
If Starmer does not stop Harriet from publishing before ensuring she has a majority for what she wants to say - if accusations against Bernard are proven then his vote can’t count - then Labour can quite fairly be called reckless for ploughing on without a short, prudent pause to check the accusation out.
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling him to resign his seat and a by election to be held there before the next general election without him dying. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
No he's not, not only is he not obliged to, he's not entitled to.
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling him to resign his seat and a by election to be held there before the next general election without him dying. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
No he's not, not only is he not obliged to, he's not entitled to.
Since the subject of cash v cashless has once again reared its ugly head, perhaps apt for this bit of info:
This morning, I asked one of my local vendors of our local equivalent of "The Big Issue" which is "Real Change'' ($2 for each weekly issue) IF he could accept cashless payment.
Yes, via an app called Venmo. Showed me the app thingy on his Real Change ID card, which I'd not noticed before. Said that they started using the app during the pandemic when many customers did not want to handle cash.
He estimated by maybe as much as 25% of his sales were currently cashless. Tending to be younger than average customer.
Liked the fact that vendors got 100% of payments via app, just like cash. (They pay the Real Change organization up front for the papers they peddle.)
Also said that many who use the app automatically round up their payment, say to $5. Of course, many cash customers also give a bit extra (I usual do $3) but appears its more likely for someone using their app, than another digging a few bucks out of their wallet.
Let’s be honest here. If a committee finds me guilty of wearing a dirty tee with tikka masala spilt down the front of it, and publicly publish I am a very naughty girl for this - but those on the committee have dirty tee with curry spilt down the front too, surely they have zero right or qualification to tell the world I’m naughty? I, and yourselves, should be able to refer to them as kangaroo’s in dirty t-shirts, without them sanctioning us for pointing that out, whenever it’s a matter of fact that are. That’s the truth isn’t it?
This report has to be binned now, not published, and decide if it’s worth pursuing again, now the committee has been left in a position they can’t possibly pass judgement when guilty of the same crimes at the heart of it.
Having read this twice - Is this Hendricks or Monkey 47 talking?
Let’s be dead sober serious here. How can you support a judge sentencing a defendant to the stocks for visiting a brothel, when the judge visits brothels? The very fundamental princeypulls of UK justice hang in the balance here, like Dick Turpin on the gallows.
I thought the whole point was that the defendant in this case is not being sentanced for visiting a brothel but for the far more srious crime of lying about the visit.
Or to remove the analogy and look at the facts. The committee is, I thought, deciding whether or not Johnson mislead Parliament about the parties. To my knowledge - though I am happy to be corrected - Jenkin is has not lied to Parliament about parties. Johnson has.
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling him to resign his seat and a by election to be held there before the next general election without him dying. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
No he's not, not only is he not obliged to, he's not entitled to.
That only applies in the case of the MP's death, Boris is still very much alive
No, a seat is vacant due to either death or resignation, not just death. A resigned MP will do as much casework as a dead one.
Prove it! Where does it specifically say an MP who resigns via the Chiltern Hundreds automatically has their casework taken on by a neighbouring MP even before the by election
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling him to resign his seat and a by election to be held there before the next general election without him dying. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
No he's not, not only is he not obliged to, he's not entitled to.
That only applies in the case of the MP's death, Boris is still very much alive
No, a seat is vacant due to either death or resignation, not just death. A resigned MP will do as much casework as a dead one.
Prove it! Where does it specifically say an MP who resigns via the Chiltern Hundreds automatically has their casework taken on by a neighbouring MP even before the by election
And I’d like you to show that any resigned MP has continued casework until the new MP has taken their seat.
You were claiming that Johnson retains responsibilities to his constituency. That is simply incorrect.
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling him to resign his seat and a by election to be held there before the next general election without him dying. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
No he's not, not only is he not obliged to, he's not entitled to.
That only applies in the case of the MP's death, Boris is still very much alive
No, a seat is vacant due to either death or resignation, not just death. A resigned MP will do as much casework as a dead one.
Prove it! Where does it specifically say an MP who resigns via the Chiltern Hundreds automatically has their casework taken on by a neighbouring MP even before the by election
And, by the way, the link posted above says exactly that. That the casework is taken on by a neighbouring MP.
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling him to resign his seat and a by election to be held there before the next general election without him dying. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
No he's not, not only is he not obliged to, he's not entitled to.
That only applies in the case of the MP's death, Boris is still very much alive
No, a seat is vacant due to either death or resignation, not just death. A resigned MP will do as much casework as a dead one.
Prove it! Where does it specifically say an MP who resigns via the Chiltern Hundreds automatically has their casework taken on by a neighbouring MP even before the by election
And, by the way, the link posted above says exactly that. That the casework is taken on by a neighbouring MP.
No it doesn't, it doesn't mention the Chiltern Hundreds anywhere, it could well be referring just to a dead MP.
Erskine May, the ultimate parliamentary procedural authority nowhere that I can see says an MP who takes the Chiltern Hundreds and is still alive can abandon their constituency casework and hand it over to a neighbouring MP until the by election
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling him to resign his seat and a by election to be held there before the next general election without him dying. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
No he's not, not only is he not obliged to, he's not entitled to.
That only applies in the case of the MP's death, Boris is still very much alive
No, a seat is vacant due to either death or resignation, not just death. A resigned MP will do as much casework as a dead one.
Prove it! Where does it specifically say an MP who resigns via the Chiltern Hundreds automatically has their casework taken on by a neighbouring MP even before the by election
Under the law when an MP is given the position of Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds or Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead they immediatly cease to be MPs. This is because the whole point of those positions is that it is illegal for an MP to hold them.
If they are no longer MPs they no longer have a constituency and therefore they no longer have constituents.
It is not an offence against free speech to disapprove of something that someone says.
No, its not.
So disapprove of Mogg all you like. I do. I can't stand Mogg.
If there's talk of censoring him though, of punishing him, that's another matter.
Even if what he said was wrong, even if it was pigheaded, even if it was stupid, he should still have the right to say it.
No-one is taking away the right of him to speak - but if that speech is detrimental to British democracy and its institutions, then those institutions have every right to create consequences for that attack on them. No-one is suggesting that he would be thrown in jail, or fined, or anything like that, but an attack on the normal functioning of democracy in Britain should not pass without consequence.
And who determines if speech is "detrimental to British democracy and its institutions"? Who gets to abuse that, if that is permitted?
You? The Prime Minister? A majority of the Commons?
The whole point of free speech is that its not restricted, that detrimental speech is not just allowed but protected.
This is your best argument on this subject, but I think I have an answer for you. Courts judge contempt of court, so firstly there's precedent for this. Secondly, there's a higher power than courts in this country, and that's parliament. If a court goes seriously egregiously wrong a final backstop to its waywardness is an act of parliament. If we think of this committee as a court -- and I'm by no means certain we should -- then it is similarly subordinate to parliament. Parliament can wind up this committee, change its composition and so on. The committee serves at the pleasure of parliament.
Of course tyranny by parliament is possible. But that's already a theoretical problem we must wrangle with even absent of all this stuff about contempt and defamation and so on. Your "who watches the watchmen" challenge is valid, but the answer is "parliament".
Except that I don't believe this would be contempt of court in a normal court either though? Criticising courts is acceptable and is free speech.
And it has been deemed unconstitutional in the USA and a violation of free speech there too.
So no, going off the courts, it seems courts are open to criticism, and that criticism is not contempt of court, even scandalous criticism anymore.
Whether this particular case ought to be thought of as a contempt-like offence is not something I've weighed in on. On balance I think JRM is saying foolish and slightly dangerous things, but I don't feel inclined to say he should be punished for it.
I merely contend that the type of thing he's saying could, if serious enough in the judgement of the "court", attract some kind of censure. I'm not saying he should be punished. I'm saying that I'm ok with the idea of that being available as an option.
Can it attract censure? What evidence is there of that?
Courts have been routinely criticised, including on the front pages of news papers and more. If calling the judiciary "Enemies of the People" is not Contempt of Court, then why would calling the Privilege Committee "a kangaroo court" be Contempt?
The crime of contempt for criticising courts has been explicitly abolished by primary legislation. It can't attract censure, its free speech. Protected free speech. As it should be.
There is no concept of protected free speech in the law of England and Wales.
Political speech is protected by the European Convention of Human Rights, which last I checked we haven't left.
But which you want to leave?
No I don't.
But I'd have no objection to us leaving it and replacing it with a British equivalent, answerable to Parliament.
I'm ambivalent on the matter.
I think it is important for judges to have a check on them. It is ridiculous when the SCOTUS or ECHR has untrammelled power that can't be overruled even when appalling decisions are made.
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling him to resign his seat and a by election to be held there before the next general election without him dying. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
No he's not, not only is he not obliged to, he's not entitled to.
That only applies in the case of the MP's death, Boris is still very much alive
No, a seat is vacant due to either death or resignation, not just death. A resigned MP will do as much casework as a dead one.
Prove it! Where does it specifically say an MP who resigns via the Chiltern Hundreds automatically has their casework taken on by a neighbouring MP even before the by election
Under the law when an MP is given the position of Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds or Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead they immediatly cease to be MPs. This is because the whole point of those positions is that it is illegal for an MP to hold them.
If they are no longer MPs they no longer have a constituency and therefore they no longer have constituents.
In ceremonial terms only, in practical terms they still have casework in their constituency until the by election and nowhere in Erskine May does it say they are released from that casework
Let’s be honest here. If a committee finds me guilty of wearing a dirty tee with tikka masala spilt down the front of it, and publicly publish I am a very naughty girl for this - but those on the committee have dirty tee with curry spilt down the front too, surely they have zero right or qualification to tell the world I’m naughty? I, and yourselves, should be able to refer to them as kangaroo’s in dirty t-shirts, without them sanctioning us for pointing that out, whenever it’s a matter of fact that are. That’s the truth isn’t it?
This report has to be binned now, not published, and decide if it’s worth pursuing again, now the committee has been left in a position they can’t possibly pass judgement when guilty of the same crimes at the heart of it.
The accusations haven’t been proved and it does seem rather strange for this to land the day before the report is published.
I take on board both those points. But you would agree fairness needs to be seen to be done in a matter of this sort.
How can you support a judge sentencing a defendant to the stocks for visiting a brothel, when the judge visits brothels? That’s just absolutely wrong. That’s not any sort of justice. In fact such a warped idea of a court could be a greater crime, than what the accused is accused of.
I can call this right because I am wonderfully balanced in my political views and only interested in being fair to absolutely everyone, whilst so many of you are so biased and bent to be able to play fair or even see where your bent means you are getting it wrong.
Starmer needs to write to Harman tonight, telling her she can’t publish tomorow until this claim is cleared up one way or the other. Otherwise his senior Labour MP might be shredding fairness by publishing, and that would really have repercussions for Labour if they pressed on against a Tory when it would have been so simple and quick to run a check - a mixture of asking Boris to provide evidence, and asking Bernard if he has anything to declare before signing off.
Do you see my point? It’s a split committee with Bernard’s as the decisive vote. With such a powerful principle of fairness at stake, just briefly pause to check to avoid making a horrendous mistake. What’s wrong with that;
There’s conflicting reports . Some say it was a unanimous agreement and one report that it was split but that seemed more to do with the punishment rather than conclusions. I can’t see the report being delayed at this late stage . There’s no repercussions for Labour . The accusations are being made against a Tory .
If Starmer does not stop Harriet from publishing before ensuring she has a majority for what she wants to say - if accusations against Bernard are proven then his vote can’t count - then Labour can quite fairly be called reckless for ploughing on without a short, prudent pause to check the accusation out.
The Jenkin story broke this afternoon and so members of the committee have had time to discuss that . There’s been no suggestion or rumours that the report is going to be delayed so I think that suggests one of two things , the Jenkin story doesn’t have legs and or there was unanimous agreement so even if his vote is called into question it’s still 6-0 .
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling him to resign his seat and a by election to be held there before the next general election without him dying. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
No he's not, not only is he not obliged to, he's not entitled to.
That only applies in the case of the MP's death, Boris is still very much alive
No, a seat is vacant due to either death or resignation, not just death. A resigned MP will do as much casework as a dead one.
Prove it! Where does it specifically say an MP who resigns via the Chiltern Hundreds automatically has their casework taken on by a neighbouring MP even before the by election
And, by the way, the link posted above says exactly that. That the casework is taken on by a neighbouring MP.
No it doesn't, it doesn't mention the Chiltern Hundreds anywhere, it could well be referring just to a dead MP.
Erskine May, the ultimate parliamentary procedural authority nowhere that I can see says an MP who takes the Chiltern Hundreds and is still alive can abandon their constituency casework and hand it over to a neighbouring MP until the by election
It refers to a vacant seat. A seat becomes vacant the moment someone takes the Chiltern Hundreds. Absolutely all rights, privileges, and responsibilities of being an MP cease at that moment.
Anyone else notice, that the more the Vicar of Bray brays, the more FACTUAL ERRORS he commits?
Such as this guff about Boris Johnson still being a Member of Parliament - when he ain't.
As five seconds of googling confirms!
Farooq made a completely irrelevant side point to the main point I was making about Rees Mogg's popularity at Tory Association dinners, so I ain't conceding anything to him on that
Since the subject of cash v cashless has once again reared its ugly head, perhaps apt for this bit of info:
This morning, I asked one of my local vendors of our local equivalent of "The Big Issue" which is "Real Change'' ($2 for each weekly issue) IF he could accept cashless payment.
Yes, via an app called Venmo. Showed me the app thingy on his Real Change ID card, which I'd not noticed before. Said that they started using the app during the pandemic when many customers did not want to handle cash.
He estimated by maybe as much as 25% of his sales were currently cashless. Tending to be younger than average customer.
Liked the fact that vendors got 100% of payments via app, just like cash. (They pay the Real Change organization up front for the papers they peddle.)
Also said that many who use the app automatically round up their payment, say to $5. Of course, many cash customers also give a bit extra (I usual do $3) but appears its more likely for someone using their app, than another digging a few bucks out of their wallet.
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling him to resign his seat and a by election to be held there before the next general election without him dying. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
No he's not, not only is he not obliged to, he's not entitled to.
That only applies in the case of the MP's death, Boris is still very much alive
No, a seat is vacant due to either death or resignation, not just death. A resigned MP will do as much casework as a dead one.
Prove it! Where does it specifically say an MP who resigns via the Chiltern Hundreds automatically has their casework taken on by a neighbouring MP even before the by election
Under the law when an MP is given the position of Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds or Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead they immediatly cease to be MPs. This is because the whole point of those positions is that it is illegal for an MP to hold them.
If they are no longer MPs they no longer have a constituency and therefore they no longer have constituents.
In ceremonial terms only, in practical terms they still have casework in their constituency until the by election and nowhere in Erskine May does it say they are released from that casework
Not true. It is a legal fact that as soon as they are appointed to those positions they are no longer MPs.
Let’s be honest here. If a committee finds me guilty of wearing a dirty tee with tikka masala spilt down the front of it, and publicly publish I am a very naughty girl for this - but those on the committee have dirty tee with curry spilt down the front too, surely they have zero right or qualification to tell the world I’m naughty? I, and yourselves, should be able to refer to them as kangaroo’s in dirty t-shirts, without them sanctioning us for pointing that out, whenever it’s a matter of fact that are. That’s the truth isn’t it?
This report has to be binned now, not published, and decide if it’s worth pursuing again, now the committee has been left in a position they can’t possibly pass judgement when guilty of the same crimes at the heart of it.
Having read this twice - Is this Hendricks or Monkey 47 talking?
Let’s be dead sober serious here. How can you support a judge sentencing a defendant to the stocks for visiting a brothel, when the judge visits brothels? The very fundamental princeypulls of UK justice hang in the balance here, like Dick Turpin on the gallows.
I thought the whole point was that the defendant in this case is not being sentanced for visiting a brothel but for the far more srious crime of lying about the visit.
Or to remove the analogy and look at the facts. The committee is, I thought, deciding whether or not Johnson mislead Parliament about the parties. To my knowledge - though I am happy to be corrected - Jenkin is has not lied to Parliament about parties. Johnson has.
That’s about as factual as the Court of King Caractacus was written by Rolf Harris.
Since the subject of cash v cashless has once again reared its ugly head, perhaps apt for this bit of info:
This morning, I asked one of my local vendors of our local equivalent of "The Big Issue" which is "Real Change'' ($2 for each weekly issue) IF he could accept cashless payment.
Yes, via an app called Venmo. Showed me the app thingy on his Real Change ID card, which I'd not noticed before. Said that they started using the app during the pandemic when many customers did not want to handle cash.
He estimated by maybe as much as 25% of his sales were currently cashless. Tending to be younger than average customer.
Liked the fact that vendors got 100% of payments via app, just like cash. (They pay the Real Change organization up front for the papers they peddle.)
Also said that many who use the app automatically round up their payment, say to $5. Of course, many cash customers also give a bit extra (I usual do $3) but appears its more likely for someone using their app, than another digging a few bucks out of their wallet.
I'm sick of apps. Anyone else feel the same?
How can you be sick of apps when you don’t have a smartphone? Or do you have one now?
Privy counsellors, eh? When was the last time that term was used in the context of the naughtiness or proper behaviour of a group of senior politicians? Was there even a last time? Are privy counsellors supposed to be better behaved than those who are outside the club or what? WTF has the privy council got to do with parliament anyway?
Might kingface have found himself a lever, courtesy of Aidan Barclay?
Talking of the privy council, it's a bit suspicious that Simon Case not only got the job he's in but also that he's the first person doing that job to become a privy counsellor for 50 years. Most people in a position to form an opinion seem to think he's an incompetent under-qualified wally.
Maybe the lickspittles at the Torygraph and the Spectator will be coming out with more of this privy counsellor stuff. Will it catch on? :-)
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling him to resign his seat and a by election to be held there before the next general election without him dying. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
No he's not, not only is he not obliged to, he's not entitled to.
That only applies in the case of the MP's death, Boris is still very much alive
No, a seat is vacant due to either death or resignation, not just death. A resigned MP will do as much casework as a dead one.
Prove it! Where does it specifically say an MP who resigns via the Chiltern Hundreds automatically has their casework taken on by a neighbouring MP even before the by election
Under the law when an MP is given the position of Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds or Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead they immediatly cease to be MPs. This is because the whole point of those positions is that it is illegal for an MP to hold them.
If they are no longer MPs they no longer have a constituency and therefore they no longer have constituents.
In ceremonial terms only, in practical terms they still have casework in their constituency until the by election and nowhere in Erskine May does it say they are released from that casework
Does Erskine May seriously say MPs have a responsibility to do casework for constituents? What does it say happens if they don't?
The Republican primary electorate is fundamentally mental. Its like a the largest cult we have ever seen.
It's scary if there really is an effect that goes from law enforcement thinking Trump has committed serious crimes and prosecuting him to registered Republicans thinking hell yeah, I was thinking of backing someone else or abstaining but now it's super-clear that Donny's the right candidate. Makes you wonder whether he's going to try another January 6th, mutatis mutandis.
Just sent the following to the House of Commons Enquiry Service:
Dear HC Enquiries,
I am emailing you, in hopes you may be able to answer following question:
When it comes to providing services to constituents, what is procedure when an MP leaves the House by accepting office under the crown AND a new MP has not yet been elected?
Specifically, does the former MP have any remaining responsibilities for his former constituents in this situation?
Or must they contact some other MP for help? Or what?
Thank you in advance for your professional assistance!
Just sent the following to the House of Commons Enquiry Service:
Dear HC Enquiries,
I am emailing you, in hopes you may be able to answer following question:
When it comes to providing services to constituents, what is procedure when an MP leaves the House by accepting office under the crown AND a new MP has not yet been elected?
Specifically, does the former MP have any remaining responsibilities for his former constituents in this situation?
Or must they contact some other MP for help? Or what?
Thank you in advance for your professional assistance!
My understanding has always been that as soon as they are no longer an MP it's the job of the neighbouring MPs to help out.
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
I don’t think so. The seat is vacant, he has no responsibilities to it.
Yes he does, he has just been appointed to a ceremonial position enabling him to resign his seat and a by election to be held there before the next general election without him dying. He is still obliged to deal with all urgent constituency matters in his Uxbridge seat until the new MP for the seat is elected at the by election
No he's not, not only is he not obliged to, he's not entitled to.
That only applies in the case of the MP's death, Boris is still very much alive
No, a seat is vacant due to either death or resignation, not just death. A resigned MP will do as much casework as a dead one.
Prove it! Where does it specifically say an MP who resigns via the Chiltern Hundreds automatically has their casework taken on by a neighbouring MP even before the by election
Under the law when an MP is given the position of Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds or Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead they immediatly cease to be MPs. This is because the whole point of those positions is that it is illegal for an MP to hold them.
If they are no longer MPs they no longer have a constituency and therefore they no longer have constituents.
In ceremonial terms only, in practical terms they still have casework in their constituency until the by election and nowhere in Erskine May does it say they are released from that casework
This is Boris Johnson. When was last time he did casework for anyone?. In fact when was last time he even visited his constituency??
Just sent the following to the House of Commons Enquiry Service:
Dear HC Enquiries,
I am emailing you, in hopes you may be able to answer following question:
When it comes to providing services to constituents, what is procedure when an MP leaves the House by accepting office under the crown AND a new MP has not yet been elected?
Specifically, does the former MP have any remaining responsibilities for his former constituents in this situation?
Or must they contact some other MP for help? Or what?
Thank you in advance for your professional assistance!
My understanding has always been that as soon as they are no longer an MP it's the job of the neighbouring MPs to help out.
Believe procedure in US House, in case of vacancies, is for the staff of the former Member to keep on working, under supervision of the House Clerk's office, until a special election is held (as per state law) and a new Representative is elected and sworn into office.
Interviews with seven Trump advisers indicate he misled his own advisers, telling them the boxes contained only newspaper clippings and clothes. He repeatedly refused to give the documents back, even when some flew to Mar-a-Lago to beg him to return them. https://twitter.com/jameshohmann/status/1669121777908195330
Makes Boris look almost honest in comparison. Almost..
If Tory MPs on this committee vote to try and discipline the Mogg, who is as popular with Tory members as Corbyn was with Labour grassroots, they could soon find themselves facing deselection attempts by their local party
He's not popular with this member. The man is a complete prat. All those children with silly names and never changed a nappy. Stuck up for Boris when he lied. Completely out of touch.
Well Rees Mogg is the one Tory MP other than Boris and Rishi who is guaranteed to sell out any Tory Association dinner he addresses. He is very much in touch with the party faithful
Boris isn't an MP
He still is until the by election winner is announced
He was disqualified the moment he accepted a commission of the crown.
He is still responsible for his Uxbridge constituents problems as outgoing local MP until the new MP is elected
Even if that were true, how would they even notice ?
Privy counsellors, eh? When was the last time that term was used in the context of the naughtiness or proper behaviour of a group of senior politicians? Was there even a last time? Are privy counsellors supposed to be better behaved than those who are outside the club or what? WTF has the privy council got to do with parliament anyway?
Might kingface have found himself a lever, courtesy of Aidan Barclay?
Talking of the privy council, it's a bit suspicious that Simon Case not only got the job he's in but also that he's the first person doing that job to become a privy counsellor for 50 years. Most people in a position to form an opinion seem to think he's an incompetent under-qualified wally.
Maybe the lickspittles at the Torygraph and the Spectator will be coming out with more of this privy counsellor stuff. Will it catch on? :-)
The Privy Council is the mediaeval group of advisors to the King. As the country evolved into the modern-day UK, the council was never deconstituted and still plays a role. In fact, Cabinet is a standing committee of the Privy Council.
Someone find “an off-ramp” for the “cheese eating surrender monkey…”
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has put forth a proposal to establish a liaison office in Tokyo. However, the proposal has reportedly been blocked by France, a leading member of the defensive alliance.
The influential British daily The Financial Times has reported that French President Emmanuel Macron adamantly opposes opening the office. It would be NATO's first in Asia.
“We say goodbye to those companies. And what we do with their assets after that is our business.”
Putin is giving Russia powers to buy departing western companies at a knock-down price – opening a “Pandora’s box” to nationalizations. with @NastyaStognei
Anyone, anywhere, for any reason ought to be able to call out a 'kangaroo court' whether its a kangaroo court or not.
If its not a kangaroo court then show your evidence and win the argument. Don't punish people for criticising you. Because that's precisely what kangaroo courts actually do.
Free speech is not absolute. You can’t libel someone, for example. Isn’t this case akin to libelling Parliament?
Or another analogy is to contempt of court, which, again, trumps free speech.
Anyone, anywhere, for any reason ought to be able to call out a 'kangaroo court' whether its a kangaroo court or not.
If its not a kangaroo court then show your evidence and win the argument. Don't punish people for criticising you. Because that's precisely what kangaroo courts actually do.
I don't think it works that way. It's not just a difference of opinion with someone like Rees-Mogg - he is actively trying to undermine the democratic structures of the Commons, and the way in which it regulates itself. If the Commons does not defend itself from this attack then it will lose, the Rees-Moggs will win, and Britain will end up with some sort of hellish managed democracy.
Members of the Commons had to fight for the right to regulate themselves, and that process involved calling out those members who were batting for the other side.
Free speech doesn't mean consequence-free speech.
If Rees-Mogg undermines the business and work of the Commons, by making unsubstantiated allegations about its work, that he must know will only fuel conspiratorial thinking and undermine British democracy - then absolutely he should expect there to be consequences for that deliberate and damaging act.
Democracy is not just something that exists by natural law. It is a precious and fragile thing, and people like Rees-Mogg are a threat to its survival. He has no respect for the history, for the process, for the principles of democracy. He's only interested for as long as he gets what he wants from it.
MPs absolutely must be free to make unsubstantiated allegations, because otherwise even substantiated ones can be silenced too. Indeed MPs have Parliamentary Privilege to prevent them being sued for libel as a result, even if what they say is not remotely true.
Mogg is a prick. Even pricks have rights.
Hellish managed democracy happens when people in authority get to choose who has the right to speak etc which they then abuse to enforce their own version of "truth" such as the "special military operation", not when everyone does, no matter how wrongheaded they are.
JRM didn’t make his comments in the House, so Parliamentary privilege does not apply.
I'm finding the whole situation with Nadine Dorries to be quite hilarious.
I think Alok Sharma has played a much cannier hand. Kept his head down and mouth shut. He may well get a gong in the dissolution list for his COP work, if nothing more to highlight how NOT to behave when you don't get what you want.
For any who missed it:
Boris had created an elaborate fantasy world, in which his father was a knight and the rules had been followed at all times. In this world he was being pursued by an unseen enemy known only as “Dom”, who was both responsible for Brexit and trying to stop it. Boris claimed that to escape from Dom, he had to live in a series of expensive homes that didn’t belong to him, build a bulletproof treehouse, and buy gold wallpaper, which he said could block radio signals. Nadine believed it all.
Worst of all, Boris promised Nadine that he could get her a seat in the House of Lords. To make this seem plausible, he claimed to have already appointed a series of wildly unsuitable people to the upper chamber, including Tory donors, failed MPs and even his own brother. He said he was getting a public honour for his hairdresser.
For weeks, Boris strung Nadine along. “Stand by. Announcement of the list, imminent,” he texted her, claiming to have just left a “secret” meeting with the prime minister. It’s easy to scoff at such details, but to people who are in the midst of these situations, they can seem all too plausible.
Good morning. I have just had a look through the debate last night on Sir Jacob and whether or not he could be in trouble. I wondered whether, as Parliament is a club and clubs do not generally like to be brought into disrepute, there might be a rule MPs have to follow on the subject.
In the Members code of conduct there is such a rule.
15. Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.
Rule 17 provides that:
The application of this Code shall be a matter for the House of Commons, and for the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards acting in accordance with Standing Orders Nos 149 and 150 respectively.
Rules 18 and 19 are worth a look as well.
Accusing a Parliamentary committee of acting like a Kangaroo Court might well fall foul of Rule 15. Oh, and the Committee he is complaining about has responsibility to uphold the rules.
Oops.
I reckon the Moggster could be in a spot of bother.
Outraged denials from Sir Dudders in the argument below the post. Which aren't exactly definitive.
I don't know what the deal is here but there is clearly something dodgy AF going on. You don't get a peerage for a year's SPAD work. The lack of media attention is weird too, some kind of injunction situation? All very odd.
Let’s be honest here. If a committee finds me guilty of wearing a dirty tee with tikka masala spilt down the front of it, and publicly publish I am a very naughty girl for this - but those on the committee have dirty tee with curry spilt down the front too, surely they have zero right or qualification to tell the world I’m naughty? I, and yourselves, should be able to refer to them as kangaroo’s in dirty t-shirts, without them sanctioning us for pointing that out, whenever it’s a matter of fact that are. That’s the truth isn’t it?
This report has to be binned now, not published, and decide if it’s worth pursuing again, now the committee has been left in a position they can’t possibly pass judgement when guilty of the same crimes at the heart of it.
Having read this twice - Is this Hendricks or Monkey 47 talking?
It is utter bollocks, the ravings of a lunatic or a drunkard
"In 2009 while watching "Stewart Little" (1999), Hungarian art historian Gergely Barki saw the painting "Sleeping Lady with Black Vase" by Róbert Berény. It had been missing for 90 years and had been used as a prop. It was the original."
Let’s be honest here. If a committee finds me guilty of wearing a dirty tee with tikka masala spilt down the front of it, and publicly publish I am a very naughty girl for this - but those on the committee have dirty tee with curry spilt down the front too, surely they have zero right or qualification to tell the world I’m naughty? I, and yourselves, should be able to refer to them as kangaroo’s in dirty t-shirts, without them sanctioning us for pointing that out, whenever it’s a matter of fact that are. That’s the truth isn’t it?
This report has to be binned now, not published, and decide if it’s worth pursuing again, now the committee has been left in a position they can’t possibly pass judgement when guilty of the same crimes at the heart of it.
Johnson (a habitual liar) and his allies have claimed Jenkin broke COVID rules. They don’t have proof of that. There’s not been an FPN for Jenkin. There aren’t photos, like there are of 2 people on Johnson’s honours list. There’s an unproven allegation.
Also, Johnson is not being censured for breaking COVID rules. He’s being censured for lying to Parliament.
I'm finding the whole situation with Nadine Dorries to be quite hilarious.
I think Alok Sharma has played a much cannier hand. Kept his head down and mouth shut. He may well get a gong in the dissolution list for his COP work, if nothing more to highlight how NOT to behave when you don't get what you want.
For any who missed it:
Boris had created an elaborate fantasy world, in which his father was a knight and the rules had been followed at all times. In this world he was being pursued by an unseen enemy known only as “Dom”, who was both responsible for Brexit and trying to stop it. Boris claimed that to escape from Dom, he had to live in a series of expensive homes that didn’t belong to him, build a bulletproof treehouse, and buy gold wallpaper, which he said could block radio signals. Nadine believed it all.
Worst of all, Boris promised Nadine that he could get her a seat in the House of Lords. To make this seem plausible, he claimed to have already appointed a series of wildly unsuitable people to the upper chamber, including Tory donors, failed MPs and even his own brother. He said he was getting a public honour for his hairdresser.
For weeks, Boris strung Nadine along. “Stand by. Announcement of the list, imminent,” he texted her, claiming to have just left a “secret” meeting with the prime minister. It’s easy to scoff at such details, but to people who are in the midst of these situations, they can seem all too plausible.
Maybe it had to end this way, with half the cult preferring not to talk about that awkward time they followed a charlatan and the other half still believing.
Outraged denials from Sir Dudders in the argument below the post. Which aren't exactly definitive.
I don't know what the deal is here but there is clearly something dodgy AF going on. You don't get a peerage for a year's SPAD work. The lack of media attention is weird too, some kind of injunction situation? All very odd.
Sorry I might have accidentally flagged that as noticed my finger had lit up the flag but in red. Apologies if so.
Good morning. I have just had a look through the debate last night on Sir Jacob and whether or not he could be in trouble. I wondered whether, as Parliament is a club and clubs do not generally like to be brought into disrepute, there might be a rule MPs have to follow on the subject.
In the Members code of conduct there is such a rule.
15. Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.
Rule 17 provides that:
The application of this Code shall be a matter for the House of Commons, and for the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards acting in accordance with Standing Orders Nos 149 and 150 respectively.
Rules 18 and 19 are worth a look as well.
Accusing a Parliamentary committee of acting like a Kangaroo Court might well fall foul of Rule 15. Oh, and the Committee he is complaining about has responsibility to uphold the rules.
Oops.
I reckon the Moggster could be in a spot of bother.
No fan of JRM but Rule 15 is impossible to uphold given the public have no trust in politicians to maintain or strengthen.
"You ‘impugned’ that. Not me. Thank you for calling me names, mind. I appreciate that. I know you’ve been briefed to say any criticism of the so called inquiry may amount to defamation of those charged with conducting it, but it’s shit advice from a poor comms bod that won’t wash." and "The more you show you’re scared of us, the more we’ll poke through your trash."
Simon doesn't like people asking questions. Doesn't like people calling out the things he said when they directly contradict other things he says.
Others then point to this tweet of Ding Dong's, posted 09/06 at 21:32 https://twitter.com/evilref/status/1669100614456942592 where he says "Well Said" as he retweets Boris! decrying the standards committee as a "Kangeroo Court"
This is the problem the Tories have. Brainless MPs who know how to lie and smear, scream conspiracy and allege defamation, but don't actually like people asking questions. Especially journalists who like so many on Teesside aren't in the Tories pocket.
If you believe in the sovereignty of Parliament then surely bringing Parliament into disrepute, or impugning it's reputation is a big deal?
Many who argue about "sovereignty" when it comes to Brexit are against that same sovereignty when wielded by those the constitution actually gives it to. The PM is not a President, he is more a first amongst equals that together make a higher body - the Parliament. Nobody votes for a PM, nor a party, but an individual representative. And Parliament, having given power to one of its committees, is going to say clearly "we should not, cannot and will not be lied to in this bare faced manner". That some consequences are happening, even if those consequences are more akin to being banned by the country club then being fined by the cops, is a good thing.
Do people want an executive in which all power resides? An individual who can do whatever and it be protected by law because of the station they inhabit? Do Johnson defenders here really just want a demagogue - their own Berlusconi or Orban? If so, say that and defend that. But don't go try to claim Johnson has been hard done by, because we all know he isn't getting a fraction of what he deserves for his conduct - not just the partygate stuff, but conduct of a lifetime of corruption and harassment and lies.
We can say the media and political landscape has changed and PMs essentially are presidents now - in which case my position would be "okay, so let's reform the constitution to reflect that, not impose it on a system that actively denies that concept". But most people who are happy to defend Johnson right now would also balk at any level of constitutional reform that would make the Byzantine system we have any less opaque and more realistic or democratic.
Let’s be honest here. If a committee finds me guilty of wearing a dirty tee with tikka masala spilt down the front of it, and publicly publish I am a very naughty girl for this - but those on the committee have dirty tee with curry spilt down the front too, surely they have zero right or qualification to tell the world I’m naughty? I, and yourselves, should be able to refer to them as kangaroo’s in dirty t-shirts, without them sanctioning us for pointing that out, whenever it’s a matter of fact that are. That’s the truth isn’t it?
This report has to be binned now, not published, and decide if it’s worth pursuing again, now the committee has been left in a position they can’t possibly pass judgement when guilty of the same crimes at the heart of it.
The accusations haven’t been proved and it does seem rather strange for this to land the day before the report is published.
I take on board both those points. But you would agree fairness needs to be seen to be done in a matter of this sort.
How can you support a judge sentencing a defendant to the stocks for visiting a brothel, when the judge visits brothels? That’s just absolutely wrong. That’s not any sort of justice. In fact such a warped idea of a court could be a greater crime, than what the accused is accused of.
I can call this right because I am wonderfully balanced in my political views and only interested in being fair to absolutely everyone, whilst so many of you are so biased and bent to be able to play fair or even see where your bent means you are getting it wrong.
Starmer needs to write to Harman tonight, telling her she can’t publish tomorow until this claim is cleared up one way or the other. Otherwise his senior Labour MP might be shredding fairness by publishing, and that would really have repercussions for Labour if they pressed on against a Tory when it would have been so simple and quick to run a check - a mixture of asking Boris to provide evidence, and asking Bernard if he has anything to declare before signing off.
Do you see my point? It’s a split committee with Bernard’s as the decisive vote. With such a powerful principle of fairness at stake, just briefly pause to check to avoid making a horrendous mistake. What’s wrong with that;
Harman is not acting as a Labour MP. She is acting on behalf of the House. It would be entirely inappropriate for Starmer to interfere in the process in any way. The House is the only authority that can interrupt this process.
The Republican primary electorate is fundamentally mental. Its like a the largest cult we have ever seen.
It's scary if there really is an effect that goes from law enforcement thinking Trump has committed serious crimes and prosecuting him to registered Republicans thinking hell yeah, I was thinking of backing someone else or abstaining but now it's super-clear that Donny's the right candidate. Makes you wonder whether he's going to try another January 6th, mutatis mutandis.
Haven't I been saying this for a while? The next election will either lead to a Trump victory or it will lead to a full-scale armed insurrection. A very very large number of Americans are mad. Already of the mindset that their gun should have more rights than their children, now they want to take away the rights of women and go and persecute anyone who isn't a shitkicker like them. And their weapon on choice is Donald J Trump.
Florida is remarkable. It has managed to provide a third Presidential candidate who appears every bit as crooked as the other two.
Is it okay for a real estate developer to hire the Mayor to help get a city waiver for a major building project? https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/miami-its-a-whole-nother-country Now that Miami Mayor Francis X. Suarez has filed paperwork to seek the Republican presidential nomination, I’m finally going to write about something that’s been bugging me and making me laugh for a few weeks. Just to keep up on things I subscribe to a number of papers in swing or swingish states around the country. One of those is the Miami Herald. Far several weeks the Herald has been advancing a story about Mayor Suarez and his relationship with one of the city’s rising real estate developers, Rishi Kapoor. In these cases “relationship” usually means a shadowy and uncertain series of ties. But not shadowy: the Mayor is literally on Kapoor’s payroll. It’s started with people raising questions about the fact that Kapoor had been working to get a series of accommodations from the city for a major development project and had also been paying Suarez $10,000 a month for vaguely defined consulting services...
...Suarez and Kapoor initially said Suarez was helping Kapoor find investors for one of his projects, not make the red tape for the big project in Coconut Grove disappear. But then the Herald broke the story that the company’s records made very clear that they were paying the Mayor to do just that. Notes from a meeting last summer, in which Kapoor tried reassure skittish investors that the zoning issues would be resolved, read: “Mayor Suarez to assist in pushing this along.”..
Just sent the following to the House of Commons Enquiry Service:
Dear HC Enquiries,
I am emailing you, in hopes you may be able to answer following question:
When it comes to providing services to constituents, what is procedure when an MP leaves the House by accepting office under the crown AND a new MP has not yet been elected?
Specifically, does the former MP have any remaining responsibilities for his former constituents in this situation?
Or must they contact some other MP for help? Or what?
Thank you in advance for your professional assistance!
My understanding has always been that as soon as they are no longer an MP it's the job of the neighbouring MPs to help out.
An MP and their office can manage casework using the authority of that MP status. Once they cease to be an MP their office staff are made redundant and there is no authority to be used.
Let’s be honest here. If a committee finds me guilty of wearing a dirty tee with tikka masala spilt down the front of it, and publicly publish I am a very naughty girl for this - but those on the committee have dirty tee with curry spilt down the front too, surely they have zero right or qualification to tell the world I’m naughty? I, and yourselves, should be able to refer to them as kangaroo’s in dirty t-shirts, without them sanctioning us for pointing that out, whenever it’s a matter of fact that are. That’s the truth isn’t it?
This report has to be binned now, not published, and decide if it’s worth pursuing again, now the committee has been left in a position they can’t possibly pass judgement when guilty of the same crimes at the heart of it.
The accusations haven’t been proved and it does seem rather strange for this to land the day before the report is published.
I take on board both those points. But you would agree fairness needs to be seen to be done in a matter of this sort.
How can you support a judge sentencing a defendant to the stocks for visiting a brothel, when the judge visits brothels? That’s just absolutely wrong. That’s not any sort of justice. In fact such a warped idea of a court could be a greater crime, than what the accused is accused of.
I can call this right because I am wonderfully balanced in my political views and only interested in being fair to absolutely everyone, whilst so many of you are so biased and bent to be able to play fair or even see where your bent means you are getting it wrong.
Starmer needs to write to Harman tonight, telling her she can’t publish tomorow until this claim is cleared up one way or the other. Otherwise his senior Labour MP might be shredding fairness by publishing, and that would really have repercussions for Labour if they pressed on against a Tory when it would have been so simple and quick to run a check - a mixture of asking Boris to provide evidence, and asking Bernard if he has anything to declare before signing off.
Do you see my point? It’s a split committee with Bernard’s as the decisive vote. With such a powerful principle of fairness at stake, just briefly pause to check to avoid making a horrendous mistake. What’s wrong with that;
Harman is not acting as a Labour MP. She is acting on behalf of the House. It would be entirely inappropriate for Starmer to interfere in the process in any way. The House is the only authority that can interrupt this process.
Also, the doing of the parties is not really the thing at issue. Being the Prime Minister and actively lying to the house is the issue. If Johnson had come out and said "Sorry, we obviously got this one wrong, I was trying to keep morale going in government at a time of deep stress but I can understand to most of you who couldn't see family in desperate times it will be seen as disrespectful, I apologise to you the people and this house"... there would be no standards committee report. The whole thing only exists because he lied, lied some more, and kept lying.
The Republican primary electorate is fundamentally mental. Its like a the largest cult we have ever seen.
It's scary if there really is an effect that goes from law enforcement thinking Trump has committed serious crimes and prosecuting him to registered Republicans thinking hell yeah, I was thinking of backing someone else or abstaining but now it's super-clear that Donny's the right candidate. Makes you wonder whether he's going to try another January 6th, mutatis mutandis.
Haven't I been saying this for a while? The next election will either lead to a Trump victory or it will lead to a full-scale armed insurrection. A very very large number of Americans are mad. Already of the mindset that their gun should have more rights than their children, now they want to take away the rights of women and go and persecute anyone who isn't a shitkicker like them. And their weapon on choice is Donald J Trump.
More likely there will be a small crowd of armed misfits embarrassing themselves. Hopefully they don't kill anyone.
The country has lost its mind . At this point Trump could shoot someone and his poll ratings amongst GOP voters would go up.
As he said himself, years ago, about shooting someone in Times Square, I think.
He’s unlocked a cheat code in the collective consciousness of the USA, wherein he can literally do no wrong. Trump-the-man is irrelevant; it’s Trump-the-concept that matters. He’s kind of a genius, in a nasty, twisted and mean way.
FWIW I think Biden and the Dems are making a mistake by running Old Man Joe against him.
Can I thank the desperate for their contributions to this thread overnight in defence of their fallen leader? I include Simon Ding Dong Clarke alongside Moonrabbit and HYUFD - desperate, deluded, detached from reality.
Boris! lied to parliament. Repeatedly. Openly. Deliberately. A committee which has very senior and respected Tory Brexiteer MPs on it has examined all the evidence and is presenting its findings to parliament.
Boris! and his toadying lickspittles decided not to hang around for the report - because then you have to defend. Instead he flounces off and denies the validity of the committee. The last minute "Jenkin is a Bad Man" attempt is simply the very last flail before showtime. Baseless, irrelevant, ignorant.
If as they allege Boris is innocent (and will lovingly continue to do casework!!!!), why did he not await the judgement of the Commons? His party has a huge majority thanks to Boris! Surely the morons and lickspittles would vote down such an invalid report against an innocent man?
And even if Sunak decided to wash his hands like Pilot, that doesn't mean there would be a recall election, and if there was would not an innocent man rise like Lazarus and be reaffirmed in triumph?
No. Because Boris! is a coward. And his supporters are cowards too.
Can I thank the desperate for their contributions to this thread overnight in defence of their fallen leader? I include Simon Ding Dong Clarke alongside Moonrabbit and HYUFD - desperate, deluded, detached from reality.
Boris! lied to parliament. Repeatedly. Openly. Deliberately. A committee which has very senior and respected Tory Brexiteer MPs on it has examined all the evidence and is presenting its findings to parliament.
Boris! and his toadying lickspittles decided not to hang around for the report - because then you have to defend. Instead he flounces off and denies the validity of the committee. The last minute "Jenkin is a Bad Man" attempt is simply the very last flail before showtime. Baseless, irrelevant, ignorant.
If as they allege Boris is innocent (and will lovingly continue to do casework!!!!), why did he not await the judgement of the Commons? His party has a huge majority thanks to Boris! Surely the morons and lickspittles would vote down such an invalid report against an innocent man?
And even if Sunak decided to wash his hands like Pilot, that doesn't mean there would be a recall election, and if there was would not an innocent man rise like Lazarus and be reaffirmed in triumph?
No. Because Boris! is a coward. And his supporters are cowards too.
I was only joking! 😇
How on earth did such nonsense tweak your nuts and get you barking so much?
You should know better really, me and my Dad have been vehemently anti Boris since I found and started posting to PB two years ago, and Boris had an army of defenders on PB back then. It’s true - PB and the parliamentary Tory party had an army of Boris defenders just two years ago, now they have all melted away like the Praetorian Guard on the morning Nero had to run for it. History repeating itself.
Can I thank the desperate for their contributions to this thread overnight in defence of their fallen leader? I include Simon Ding Dong Clarke alongside Moonrabbit and HYUFD - desperate, deluded, detached from reality.
Boris! lied to parliament. Repeatedly. Openly. Deliberately. A committee which has very senior and respected Tory Brexiteer MPs on it has examined all the evidence and is presenting its findings to parliament.
Boris! and his toadying lickspittles decided not to hang around for the report - because then you have to defend. Instead he flounces off and denies the validity of the committee. The last minute "Jenkin is a Bad Man" attempt is simply the very last flail before showtime. Baseless, irrelevant, ignorant.
If as they allege Boris is innocent (and will lovingly continue to do casework!!!!), why did he not await the judgement of the Commons? His party has a huge majority thanks to Boris! Surely the morons and lickspittles would vote down such an invalid report against an innocent man?
And even if Sunak decided to wash his hands like Pilot, that doesn't mean there would be a recall election, and if there was would not an innocent man rise like Lazarus and be reaffirmed in triumph?
No. Because Boris! is a coward. And his supporters are cowards too.
I was only joking! 😇
How on earth did such nonsense tweak your nuts and get you barking so much?
You should know better really, me and my Dad have been vehemently anti Boris since I found and started posting to PB two years ago, and Boris had an army of defenders on PB back then. It’s true - PB and the parliamentary Tory party had an army of Boris defenders just two years ago, now they have all melted away like the Praetorian Guard on the morning Nero had to run for it. History repeating itself.
I can do serious if you want. Firstly, based on what my dad heard, I was first person to post to PB that there is going to be a move to oust Boris and replace him with Sunak - and the reason for that, at the time, was not lying to parliament, but his economic idea’s he was trying to force on his government made no Conservative or economic sense at all.
I think there is plenty of that in it to be honest, because when my Dad told me that and I posted it, much of his lying about parties he hadn’t even done yet.
And the other thing I would seriously say about this, Boris is so strapped to Brexit, getting Brexit done, his hard Brexit deal, how much of his downfall isn’t the partygate lying at all, but Brexit?
And vice versa. Unpopular Brexit means unpopular Boris, unpopular boris hurts Brexit popularity.
Boris Brexit is like an Ed Stone, Boris is strapped to Brexit stone and hurtling to bottom of sea of unpopularity, and the fact he is now friendless, the Tory party putting boot in, is Tory Party trying to free themselves from the rigging strapping them to that Brexit Stone?
Looking at the bigger picture here, which is what I’m good at, do you see what I mean?
Comments
Indeed the Council of Europe says this: Such protection is not restricted to “true” statements; it applies in particular to political speech and debate on questions of public interest
So yes, protection does exist, its called protection, and political speech is in particular protected.
https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/expression
But I'd have no objection to us leaving it and replacing it with a British equivalent, answerable to Parliament.
I'm ambivalent on the matter.
"The seat has been vacant since 12 June 2023, when the seat's previous holder, Boris Johnson, formally resigned and subsequently produced a vacant seat."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uxbridge_and_South_Ruislip_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
AND will actually take whatever means of exchange you've got to purchase what your shopping for.
Its been an interesting conversation.
Goodnight everyone.
How can you support a judge sentencing a defendant to the stocks for visiting a brothel, when the judge visits brothels? That’s just absolutely wrong. That’s not any sort of justice. In fact such a warped idea of a court could be a greater crime, than what the accused is accused of.
I can call this right because I am wonderfully balanced in my political views and only interested in being fair to absolutely everyone, whilst so many of you are so biased and bent to be able to play fair or even see where your bent means you are getting it wrong.
Starmer needs to write to Harman tonight, telling her she can’t publish tomorow until this claim is cleared up one way or the other. Otherwise his senior Labour MP might be shredding fairness by publishing, and that would really have repercussions for Labour if they pressed on against a Tory when it would have been so simple and quick to run a check - a mixture of asking Boris to provide evidence, and asking Bernard if he has anything to declare before signing off.
Do you see my point? It’s a split committee with Bernard’s as the decisive vote. With such a powerful principle of fairness at stake, just briefly pause to check to avoid making a horrendous mistake. What’s wrong with that;
This morning, I asked one of my local vendors of our local equivalent of "The Big Issue" which is "Real Change'' ($2 for each weekly issue) IF he could accept cashless payment.
Yes, via an app called Venmo. Showed me the app thingy on his Real Change ID card, which I'd not noticed before. Said that they started using the app during the pandemic when many customers did not want to handle cash.
He estimated by maybe as much as 25% of his sales were currently cashless. Tending to be younger than average customer.
Liked the fact that vendors got 100% of payments via app, just like cash. (They pay the Real Change organization up front for the papers they peddle.)
Also said that many who use the app automatically round up their payment, say to $5. Of course, many cash customers also give a bit extra (I usual do $3) but appears its more likely for someone using their app, than another digging a few bucks out of their wallet.
I would draw a distinction between the Speaker suspending an MP for being actively disruptive during a debate, and some MPs censuring another MP for saying something critical of them.
Being actively disruptive is comparable to contempt of court, the actual contempt of court that still exists and is enforced in this country.
What Mogg did wasn't that. It was surely equivalent to scandalising the court, which has not been enforced since the 1930s and was explicitly removed as contempt of court by primary legislation a decade ago.
So complete apples and oranges.
Being disruptive during a debate is not OK. Being critical of anyone you wish to criticise is, and is protected as privilege during a debate too.
Such as this guff about Boris Johnson still being a Member of Parliament - when he ain't.
As five seconds of googling confirms!
Until an election takes place, an MP of the same party, and of a nearby constituency, will manage constituency matters in the vacant seat.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/by-elections
I’d be happy to be proven wrong, if you can show me the rules that say he does maintain a responsibility. Just think about it carefully, it’s no different when the seat is vacant due to a death.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65908054
Or to remove the analogy and look at the facts. The committee is, I thought, deciding whether or not Johnson mislead Parliament about the parties. To my knowledge - though I am happy to be corrected - Jenkin is has not lied to Parliament about parties. Johnson has.
You were claiming that Johnson retains responsibilities to his constituency. That is simply incorrect.
https://pro.morningconsult.com/trackers/2024-gop-primary-election-tracker
The Republican primary electorate is fundamentally mental. Its like a the largest cult we have ever seen.
Erskine May, the ultimate parliamentary procedural authority nowhere that I can see says an MP who takes the Chiltern Hundreds and is still alive can abandon their constituency casework and hand it over to a neighbouring MP until the by election
Not on PB anyway, that I can recall. Can you?
If they are no longer MPs they no longer have a constituency and therefore they no longer have constituents.
https://pro.morningconsult.com/trackers/2024-gop-primary-election-tracker
It is all set out by the HoC Library
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06395/SN06395.pdf
Might kingface have found himself a lever, courtesy of Aidan Barclay?
Talking of the privy council, it's a bit suspicious that Simon Case not only got the job he's in but also that he's the first person doing that job to become a privy counsellor for 50 years. Most people in a position to form an opinion seem to think he's an incompetent under-qualified wally.
Maybe the lickspittles at the Torygraph and the Spectator will be coming out with more of this privy counsellor stuff. Will it catch on? :-)
Dear HC Enquiries,
I am emailing you, in hopes you may be able to answer following question:
When it comes to providing services to constituents, what is procedure
when an MP leaves the House by accepting office under the crown AND a
new MP has not yet been elected?
Specifically, does the former MP have any remaining responsibilities
for his former constituents in this situation?
Or must they contact some other MP for help? Or what?
Thank you in advance for your professional assistance!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGeAXhnQ81I
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2650236
Charlotte Owen claims to have worked as a spad for the then-PM from Feb 2021 to Oct 2022, but sources (and documents) suggest otherwise
https://twitter.com/CatNeilan/status/1668929735580057601
Outraged denials from Sir Dudders in the argument below the post.
Which aren't exactly definitive.
https://twitter.com/jameshohmann/status/1669121777908195330
Makes Boris look almost honest in comparison.
Almost..
Tuberville rejects GOP attempts to end military promotions blockade
Pentagon officials increasingly sound alarm bells that the hold is harming the military’s readiness.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/14/tommy-tuberville-military-promotions-00101935
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has put forth a proposal to establish a liaison office in Tokyo. However, the proposal has reportedly been blocked by France, a leading member of the defensive alliance.
The influential British daily The Financial Times has reported that French President Emmanuel Macron adamantly opposes opening the office. It would be NATO's first in Asia.
https://japan-forward.com/editorial-macrons-opposition-to-nato-tokyo-office-boosts-chinas-aggression/
Putin is giving Russia powers to buy departing western companies at a knock-down price – opening a “Pandora’s box” to nationalizations. with @NastyaStognei
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1669213546800992260?s=20
Or another analogy is to contempt of court, which, again, trumps free speech.
For any who missed it:
Boris had created an elaborate fantasy world, in which his father was a knight and the rules had been followed at all times. In this world he was being pursued by an unseen enemy known only as “Dom”, who was both responsible for Brexit and trying to stop it. Boris claimed that to escape from Dom, he had to live in a series of expensive homes that didn’t belong to him, build a bulletproof treehouse, and buy gold wallpaper, which he said could block radio signals. Nadine believed it all.
Worst of all, Boris promised Nadine that he could get her a seat in the House of Lords. To make this seem plausible, he claimed to have already appointed a series of wildly unsuitable people to the upper chamber, including Tory donors, failed MPs and even his own brother. He said he was getting a public honour for his hairdresser.
For weeks, Boris strung Nadine along. “Stand by. Announcement of the list, imminent,” he texted her, claiming to have just left a “secret” meeting with the prime minister. It’s easy to scoff at such details, but to people who are in the midst of these situations, they can seem all too plausible.
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-stroppy-appeal/
I have just had a look through the debate last night on Sir Jacob and whether or not he could be in trouble.
I wondered whether, as Parliament is a club and clubs do not generally like to be brought into disrepute, there might be a rule MPs have to follow on the subject.
In the Members code of conduct there is such a rule.
15. Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.
Rule 17 provides that:
The application of this Code shall be a matter for the House of Commons, and for the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards acting in accordance with Standing Orders Nos 149 and 150 respectively.
Rules 18 and 19 are worth a look as well.
Accusing a Parliamentary committee of acting like a Kangaroo Court might well fall foul of Rule 15.
Oh, and the Committee he is complaining about has responsibility to uphold the rules.
Oops.
I reckon the Moggster could be in a spot of bother.
"In 2009 while watching "Stewart Little" (1999), Hungarian art historian Gergely Barki saw the painting "Sleeping Lady with Black Vase" by Róbert Berény. It had been missing for 90 years and had been used as a prop. It was the original."
https://twitter.com/historyinmemes/status/1668880183124697090
Also, Johnson is not being censured for breaking COVID rules. He’s being censured for lying to Parliament.
Some of them always will.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-australia-65912350
Jacob Rees-Mogg is like the guy in the baseball cap.
https://twitter.com/SimonClarkeMP/status/1669060221900038165
Editor points out that
"You ‘impugned’ that. Not me. Thank you for calling me names, mind. I appreciate that. I know you’ve been briefed to say any criticism of the so called inquiry may amount to defamation of those charged with conducting it, but it’s shit advice from a poor comms bod that won’t wash." and "The more you show you’re scared of us, the more we’ll poke through your trash."
Simon doesn't like people asking questions. Doesn't like people calling out the things he said when they directly contradict other things he says.
Such as https://twitter.com/SimonClarkeMP/status/1669099667328491520
"And this is how you operate. Just spreading innuendo without facts. You simply prove my point for me." - posted 14/06 at 22:49.
Others then point to this tweet of Ding Dong's, posted 09/06 at 21:32 https://twitter.com/evilref/status/1669100614456942592 where he says "Well Said" as he retweets Boris! decrying the standards committee as a "Kangeroo Court"
This is the problem the Tories have. Brainless MPs who know how to lie and smear, scream conspiracy and allege defamation, but don't actually like people asking questions. Especially journalists who like so many on Teesside aren't in the Tories pocket.
Many who argue about "sovereignty" when it comes to Brexit are against that same sovereignty when wielded by those the constitution actually gives it to. The PM is not a President, he is more a first amongst equals that together make a higher body - the Parliament. Nobody votes for a PM, nor a party, but an individual representative. And Parliament, having given power to one of its committees, is going to say clearly "we should not, cannot and will not be lied to in this bare faced manner". That some consequences are happening, even if those consequences are more akin to being banned by the country club then being fined by the cops, is a good thing.
Do people want an executive in which all power resides? An individual who can do whatever and it be protected by law because of the station they inhabit? Do Johnson defenders here really just want a demagogue - their own Berlusconi or Orban? If so, say that and defend that. But don't go try to claim Johnson has been hard done by, because we all know he isn't getting a fraction of what he deserves for his conduct - not just the partygate stuff, but conduct of a lifetime of corruption and harassment and lies.
We can say the media and political landscape has changed and PMs essentially are presidents now - in which case my position would be "okay, so let's reform the constitution to reflect that, not impose it on a system that actively denies that concept". But most people who are happy to defend Johnson right now would also balk at any level of constitutional reform that would make the Byzantine system we have any less opaque and more realistic or democratic.
Thousands of people have demonstrated across Poland against the country’s restrictive abortion law after a woman who was five months pregnant died of sepsis
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/abortion-rights-protests-planned-poland-after-death-pregnant-100063909
It has managed to provide a third Presidential candidate who appears every bit as crooked as the other two.
Is it okay for a real estate developer to hire the Mayor to help get a city waiver for a major building project?
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/miami-its-a-whole-nother-country
Now that Miami Mayor Francis X. Suarez has filed paperwork to seek the Republican presidential nomination, I’m finally going to write about something that’s been bugging me and making me laugh for a few weeks. Just to keep up on things I subscribe to a number of papers in swing or swingish states around the country. One of those is the Miami Herald. Far several weeks the Herald has been advancing a story about Mayor Suarez and his relationship with one of the city’s rising real estate developers, Rishi Kapoor. In these cases “relationship” usually means a shadowy and uncertain series of ties. But not shadowy: the Mayor is literally on Kapoor’s payroll. It’s started with people raising questions about the fact that Kapoor had been working to get a series of accommodations from the city for a major development project and had also been paying Suarez $10,000 a month for vaguely defined consulting services...
...Suarez and Kapoor initially said Suarez was helping Kapoor find investors for one of his projects, not make the red tape for the big project in Coconut Grove disappear. But then the Herald broke the story that the company’s records made very clear that they were paying the Mayor to do just that. Notes from a meeting last summer, in which Kapoor tried reassure skittish investors that the zoning issues would be resolved, read: “Mayor Suarez to assist in pushing this along.”..
He’s unlocked a cheat code in the collective consciousness of the USA, wherein he can literally do no wrong. Trump-the-man is irrelevant; it’s Trump-the-concept that matters. He’s kind of a genius, in a nasty, twisted and mean way.
FWIW I think Biden and the Dems are making a mistake by running Old Man Joe against him.
Boris! lied to parliament. Repeatedly. Openly. Deliberately. A committee which has very senior and respected Tory Brexiteer MPs on it has examined all the evidence and is presenting its findings to parliament.
Boris! and his toadying lickspittles decided not to hang around for the report - because then you have to defend. Instead he flounces off and denies the validity of the committee. The last minute "Jenkin is a Bad Man" attempt is simply the very last flail before showtime. Baseless, irrelevant, ignorant.
If as they allege Boris is innocent (and will lovingly continue to do casework!!!!), why did he not await the judgement of the Commons? His party has a huge majority thanks to Boris! Surely the morons and lickspittles would vote down such an invalid report against an innocent man?
And even if Sunak decided to wash his hands like Pilot, that doesn't mean there would be a recall election, and if there was would not an innocent man rise like Lazarus and be reaffirmed in triumph?
No. Because Boris! is a coward. And his supporters are cowards too.
How on earth did such nonsense tweak your nuts and get you barking so much?
You should know better really, me and my Dad have been vehemently anti Boris since I found and started posting to PB two years ago, and Boris had an army of defenders on PB back then. It’s true - PB and the parliamentary Tory party had an army of Boris defenders just two years ago, now they have all melted away like the Praetorian Guard on the morning Nero had to run for it. History repeating itself.
I think there is plenty of that in it to be honest, because when my Dad told me that and I posted it, much of his lying about parties he hadn’t even done yet.
And the other thing I would seriously say about this, Boris is so strapped to Brexit, getting Brexit done, his hard Brexit deal, how much of his downfall isn’t the partygate lying at all, but Brexit?
And vice versa. Unpopular Brexit means unpopular Boris, unpopular boris hurts Brexit popularity.
Boris Brexit is like an Ed Stone, Boris is strapped to Brexit stone and hurtling to bottom of sea of unpopularity, and the fact he is now friendless, the Tory party putting boot in, is Tory Party trying to free themselves from the rigging strapping them to that Brexit Stone?
Looking at the bigger picture here, which is what I’m good at, do you see what I mean?