|
|
Post by northwestman on Sept 2, 2022 13:59:19 GMT 1
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1102126/Joint_Opinion_of_Lord_Pannick_QC_and_Jason_Pobjoy_1.9.2022_-_Committee_of_Privileges_-_Boris_Johnson__Matter_referred_on_21_April_2022_.pdfThis legal advice to Johnson won't have come cheap. I guess it's beyond the realms of probability that he's paid for it personally. His Q.C., Lord Pannick, has argued the following: "An inaccurate statement by a Minister (or a Member) to the House is only a contempt if the Minister (or Member) knew that the statement was false and intended to deceive the House". The standard of proof applied by the Committee should be “whether the allegations were significantly more likely than not to be true”, which was described as "the standard applied under the House’s disciplinary proceedings to serious cases involving MPs". Mr Johnson should seek from the Committee an assurance that if it receives evidence from any witness, Mr Johnson will be told their identity so that he has a proper opportunity to respond. Mr Johnson should ask the Committee to confirm that it will ensure that Mr Johnson knows what is alleged against him, and the evidence upon which it is based, before he is required to give any written or oral evidence. It is unfair to prevent a person who faces serious charges which (if proved) may lead to sanctions to be denied the right to have a lawyer speak on their behalf at a hearing to make any points of principle. Fairness also requires that Mr Johnson should be able, through his counsel, to cross examine any witness whose evidence is relied on to establish a contempt of the House in so far as there are material disputes of fact. The inquiry has simple questions to answer: was the House misled, was that a contempt of parliament, if so, how serious, and what should the sanction be, if any? Moreover, Mark Elliot, a professor of public law at the University of Cambridge, has pointed out that much of the criticism Pannick makes of the privileges committee is inapplicable because they refer to legal standards, rather than parliamentary process. The Labour MP Chris Bryant has said that Boris Johnson is “trying to intimidate” the committee investigating him over Partygate, and says that Pannick’s opinion is “bizarre” and has no formal status.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Sept 2, 2022 14:33:57 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by wookeywombat on Sept 2, 2022 15:57:51 GMT 1
How on earth has Priti Patel got the nerve to commission a report like this when by all previous parliamentary procedures she should not be in the job. |
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Sept 2, 2022 16:34:00 GMT 1
How on earth has Priti Patel got the nerve to commission a report like this when by all previous parliamentary procedures she should not be in the job. There's plenty who should have jobs, you just think they're all Tories. |
|
|
|
Post by wookeywombat on Sept 2, 2022 16:56:40 GMT 1
How on earth has Priti Patel got the nerve to commission a report like this when by all previous parliamentary procedures she should not be in the job. There's plenty who should have jobs, you just think they're all Tories.  Says the person who has the most stilted outlook about everything on this board. There are/were plenty of capable Tories but they have been driven out by the Johnson acolytes. |
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Sept 2, 2022 18:15:49 GMT 1
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1102126/Joint_Opinion_of_Lord_Pannick_QC_and_Jason_Pobjoy_1.9.2022_-_Committee_of_Privileges_-_Boris_Johnson__Matter_referred_on_21_April_2022_.pdfThis legal advice to Johnson won't have come cheap. I guess it's beyond the realms of probability that he's paid for it personally. His Q.C., Lord Pannick, has argued the following: "An inaccurate statement by a Minister (or a Member) to the House is only a contempt if the Minister (or Member) knew that the statement was false and intended to deceive the House". The standard of proof applied by the Committee should be “whether the allegations were significantly more likely than not to be true”, which was described as "the standard applied under the House’s disciplinary proceedings to serious cases involving MPs". Mr Johnson should seek from the Committee an assurance that if it receives evidence from any witness, Mr Johnson will be told their identity so that he has a proper opportunity to respond. Mr Johnson should ask the Committee to confirm that it will ensure that Mr Johnson knows what is alleged against him, and the evidence upon which it is based, before he is required to give any written or oral evidence. It is unfair to prevent a person who faces serious charges which (if proved) may lead to sanctions to be denied the right to have a lawyer speak on their behalf at a hearing to make any points of principle. Fairness also requires that Mr Johnson should be able, through his counsel, to cross examine any witness whose evidence is relied on to establish a contempt of the House in so far as there are material disputes of fact. The inquiry has simple questions to answer: was the House misled, was that a contempt of parliament, if so, how serious, and what should the sanction be, if any? Moreover, Mark Elliot, a professor of public law at the University of Cambridge, has pointed out that much of the criticism Pannick makes of the privileges committee is inapplicable because they refer to legal standards, rather than parliamentary process. The Labour MP Chris Bryant has said that Boris Johnson is “trying to intimidate” the committee investigating him over Partygate, and says that Pannick’s opinion is “bizarre” and has no formal status. A good summary of the Legal Advice Johnson has had here too. For all the criticism of lawyers by the government they do seem to require their services a great deal of the time davidallengreen.com/2022/09/the-not-at-all-devastating-devastating-johnson-opinion-on-contempt-of-parliament/ |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Sept 2, 2022 18:23:10 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Sept 2, 2022 18:28:42 GMT 1
There's plenty who should have jobs, you just think they're all Tories. Says the person who has the most stilted outlook about everything on this board. There are/were plenty of capable Tories but they have been driven out by the Johnson acolytes. It was meant to read "Plenty who shouldn't have jobs", my mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Sept 2, 2022 18:33:10 GMT 1
It appears a top white-collar criminal firm and the barristers have been instructed directly by the Prime Minister, presumably with public money. For all Johnson’s derision about “lefty lawyers” and his supporters’ attacks on legal aid “fat cats”, Johnson is very ready to use taxpayer money to find technicalities so as to frustrate processes. |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Sept 2, 2022 20:56:51 GMT 1
www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/02/ex-commons-standards-chief-chris-bryant-hits-out-over-partygate-legal-advice-reportsBoris Johnson has been accused of trying to “intimidate and bully” an inquiry into claims he misled MPs over Downing Street parties, after No 10 took the highly unusual step of commissioning a senior QC to scrutinise the legal basis for the process at a public cost of almost £130,000. In a highly choreographed process seemingly intended to discredit the inquiry before it begins in the coming weeks, Pannick’s findings were briefed to a handful of friendly newspapers on Thursday night, which ran stories describing the opinion as “devastating”. But the 22-page document prompted puzzlement from legal and constitutional experts, who said Pannick was assessing a parliamentary process as if it was a judicial one. Chris Bryant, the Labour MP who stepped back from leading the investigation over previous criticism of Johnson, said it appeared to be “an attempt to intimidate and bully the committee”. I never thought for one second that Johnson would be spending his own money on this. It's us that foot the legal bill while he tries to get off the hook.
|
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Sept 3, 2022 7:50:49 GMT 1
Only the Mail could call a Parliamentary Committee a “kangaroo court”. |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Sept 3, 2022 8:26:20 GMT 1
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/boris-johnson-downing-street-parliament-chris-bryant-house-of-commons-b2158717.htmlLegal opinion commissioned by the Government from a top lawyer criticising the Commons investigation into whether Boris Johnson misled Parliament reportedly cost the taxpayer nearly £130,000. On Friday, Lord Pannick claimed the Privileges Committee is adopting an “unfair procedure” and “fundamentally flawed” approach. Downing Street commissioned the legal advice from the crossbench peer and published it on Friday in a highly unusual move, drawing accusations the outgoing Prime Minister is attempting to “intimidate” the committee in a bid to clear his name.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Sept 4, 2022 11:00:46 GMT 1
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/04/boris-johnson-dreams-comeback-nightmare-liz-trussThen there’s the investigation into whether he lied to parliament about Partygate. Johnson sees this as a mortal threat to any hopes of a comeback. Having tried and failed to prevent the inquiry by the privileges committee, he has since sought to besmirch it by spinning that it will be a “kangaroo court”, even though a majority of its members are Conservative MPs and it is advised by a former appeal court judge. (The Mail is putting out article after article, editorial after editorial trying to assist Johnson in this line of attack). In his final weeks in office, Downing Street used nearly £130,000 of public money to pay for a contentious legal opinion attacking the fairness of the committee’s proceedings. Labour calls this an attempt to intimidate and some senior Tories agree. “It is outrageous to try to nobble the committee,” says one former cabinet minister. “It’s very Trumpian.” The hearings are dangerous to him because they will take evidence from police officers, civil servants and himself – under oath. If he can’t prevent that, he will try to cast doubt on the legitimacy of a guilty verdict in the hope of persuading MPs to reject or soften any penalties the committee might recommend. Suspension from the Commons for more than 10 days would allow his Uxbridge constituents to petition for a byelection to throw him out. How she handles this will be an early test of the integrity and the savvy of Ms Truss. Any attempt on her part to stymie the investigation would ignite outrage and be taken as confirmation that she is Boris Johnson in heels. Her interests would be best served by his removal from the Commons.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Sept 4, 2022 11:16:23 GMT 1
www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/04/revealed-levelling-up-fund-allocated-south-east-twice-as-much-as-north-eastThe south-east of England, the most affluent region in Britain outside London, last year received almost twice as much money as the north-east from the government’s levelling up fund aimed at boosting deprived areas. Projects in the south-east benefited from £9.2m from the fund in the year to 31 March 2022. By comparison, the north-east only received £4.9m, despite being the poorest region in Britain by disposable household income. The £4.8bn fund is under scrutiny over its failure to date to deliver to some of the poorest areas of the country. There are also questions over the criteria for allocating money after the former chancellor, Rishi Sunak, told an audience that he changed funding formulas to divert money from “deprived urban areas”. Ministers want the multi-billion pound fund to provide a cash boost to some of the poorest areas of the UK, but the new figures obtained under freedom of information laws reveal that just £107.4m of funds were delivered in the year to 31 March 2022.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Sept 5, 2022 9:47:31 GMT 1
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11178213/Tory-MP-Andrew-Bridgen-ordered-1-5million-five-bed-family-home-800-000-costs.htmlConservative MP Andrew Bridgen has been evicted from a £1.5million property owned by his family's firm - and ordered to pay out £800,000 in costs - after a dispute in which a High Court judge ruled that he 'lied' under oath. Besides the £800,000 in legal costs to be paid to the three shareholders in AB Produce, Bridgen could also be liable for £244,000 in rent arrears. In March, a High Court judge ruled that he lied under oath, behaved in an "abusive, arrogant and aggressive" way, and was so " dishonest" that nothing he said about the dispute could be taken at face value. Under Parliamentary rules, any MP who receives a bankruptcy restrictions order must step down. Bridgen could also be referred to the Parliamentary commissioner for standards for failing to declare that AB Produce was paying his rent and energy bills. The MP's Code of Conduct states that all 'taxable expenses, allowances and benefits such as company cars' should be declared, along with 'financial support and sponsorship' and 'gifts of property'.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Sept 5, 2022 16:07:27 GMT 1
www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/politics/219835/exclusive-tory-chairman-who-raised-millions-quits?collection=12700&&contentLayout=NewsThe co-chairman of the Conservatives, who raised tens of millions of pounds for the party's general election campaign, has resigned hours after Liz Truss was made party leader. Ben Elliot, a close ally of Boris Johnson, announced he was stepping down from the role – leaving Miss Truss with the headache of trying to find a powerful replacement. Mr Elliot spearheaded the drive to amass a £56millon war chest in the run-up to the 2019 election, of which £23million was raised in the four weeks prior to polling day. Controversially, Mr Elliot used donor clubs to generate funds – including the use of an ‘advisory board’ for £250,000-a-head contributors – which attracted allegations that he was deploying ‘cash-for-access’ techniques. In 2021, BBC News described Elliot as the "Tories' chief fundraiser." He raised nearly £2 million from donors with links to the Vladimir Putin regime in Russia. Elliot is the co-founder of Quintessentially Group, a luxury lifestyle group with a 24-hour global concierge service, which he started in London in December 2000. The company has boasted about how it serves wealthy Russian clients, which includes opening an office in Russia and creating a " dedicated Russian team." After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the company deleted its webpage that boasted about serving Russian elite clients. Wiki. I am still of the opinion that there is more to come out with regards to Johnson and his Russian connections.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Sept 5, 2022 21:12:07 GMT 1
NEW RULES from tomorrow, all snipes, posts, stories, gossip BS etc, must be aimed solely at liz truss  |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Sept 6, 2022 10:38:08 GMT 1
NEW RULES from tomorrow, all snipes, posts, stories, gossip BS etc, must be aimed solely at liz truss That's not going to work, skullduggery runs deep in Tory party MPs. Liz Truss, although a loose cannon, might even be the least sleazy - haven't seen much on her yet, but time will tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Sept 7, 2022 16:00:06 GMT 1
Liz Truss has shelved Boris Johnson’s plans to nominate Tory MP Christopher Chope to the body that will be investigating whether the former prime minister lied to Parliament over the partygate scandal.
In one of her first acts as Prime Minister on Tuesday evening she withdrew two motions to appoint the controversial backbencher to the Commons privileges committee.
The cross-bench group is conducting an inquiry into whether Mr Johnson committed contempt of Parliament by insisting there were no lockdown-busting parties at No 10.
One of Mr Johnson’s last acts in office was to propose Mr Chope, a strong supporter of his, for both the Commons privileges committee and its standards committee.
Both motions were scheduled to come before the House on Tuesday but Adam Holloway, a Conservative whip, announced that they had been withdrawn hours after Ms Truss took office.
MPs were likely to have objected to his appointment to either body, which would have left her facing an awkward decision over whether to publicly back her predecessor’s pick.
Daily Telegraph.
Johnson using £130k of taxpayers' money for legal advice, a relentless campaign day after day in the Daily Mail to halt the inquiry as to whether Johnson misled parliament, and now evidence that Johnson planned to foul up the proceedings by trying to add Chope to the Commons Privileges Committee.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Sept 7, 2022 16:08:23 GMT 1
Liz Truss has shelved Boris Johnson’s plans to nominate Tory MP Christopher Chope to the body that will be investigating whether the former prime minister lied to Parliament over the partygate scandal. In one of her first acts as Prime Minister on Tuesday evening she withdrew two motions to appoint the controversial backbencher to the Commons privileges committee. The cross-bench group is conducting an inquiry into whether Mr Johnson committed contempt of Parliament by insisting there were no lockdown-busting parties at No 10. One of Mr Johnson’s last acts in office was to propose Mr Chope, a strong supporter of his, for both the Commons privileges committee and its standards committee. Both motions were scheduled to come before the House on Tuesday but Adam Holloway, a Conservative whip, announced that they had been withdrawn hours after Ms Truss took office. MPs were likely to have objected to his appointment to either body, which would have left her facing an awkward decision over whether to publicly back her predecessor’s pick. Daily Telegraph. Johnson using £130k of taxpayers' money for legal advice, a relentless campaign day after day in the Daily Mail to halt the inquiry as to whether Johnson misled parliament, and now evidence that Johnson planned to foul up the proceedings by trying to add Chope to the Commons Privileges Committee. that reminds me, those 3 new town players have done nothing yet |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Sept 7, 2022 16:08:35 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by block12massive on Sept 8, 2022 9:55:20 GMT 1
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62828438More parliamentary sleaze in the Labour party. "Nick Brown MP has been administratively suspended from the Labour Party pending an investigation into a complaint. He is one of the party's longest-serving MPs but will now sit as an independent until reinstated. The Newcastle upon Tyne East MP says he doesn't know the nature of the complaint but was co-operating with the investigation. Mr Brown served as chief whip under five Labour leaders including Tony Blair, Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer. His suspension from Labour Party membership will lead to the automatic precautionary suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party in accordance with party rules. Mr Brown was first elected as an MP in 1983 and went on to serve as a minister between 1997 and 2010. Last year, Labour adopted a new complaints process, set up in the wake of controversy over anti-Semitism allegations. A 2020 Equalities and Human Rights Commission report into how the claims were handled recommended that the party put in place "long-term arrangements for independent oversight of the complaint handling process". Party members backed creating this new system at its annual conference in 2021." BBC News
|
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Sept 8, 2022 10:24:34 GMT 1
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62828438More parliamentary sleaze in the Labour party. "Nick Brown MP has been administratively suspended from the Labour Party pending an investigation into a complaint. He is one of the party's longest-serving MPs but will now sit as an independent until reinstated. The Newcastle upon Tyne East MP says he doesn't know the nature of the complaint but was co-operating with the investigation. Mr Brown served as chief whip under five Labour leaders including Tony Blair, Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer. His suspension from Labour Party membership will lead to the automatic precautionary suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party in accordance with party rules. Mr Brown was first elected as an MP in 1983 and went on to serve as a minister between 1997 and 2010. Last year, Labour adopted a new complaints process, set up in the wake of controversy over anti-Semitism allegations. A 2020 Equalities and Human Rights Commission report into how the claims were handled recommended that the party put in place "long-term arrangements for independent oversight of the complaint handling process". Party members backed creating this new system at its annual conference in 2021." BBC News Was reading about that this morning and seems unusual that there is no mention as to why he has been suspended. Perhaps we ought not to jump the gun before calling out sleaze.👍 |
|
|
|
Post by wookeywombat on Sept 8, 2022 10:55:10 GMT 1
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62828438More parliamentary sleaze in the Labour party. "Nick Brown MP has been administratively suspended from the Labour Party pending an investigation into a complaint. He is one of the party's longest-serving MPs but will now sit as an independent until reinstated. The Newcastle upon Tyne East MP says he doesn't know the nature of the complaint but was co-operating with the investigation. Mr Brown served as chief whip under five Labour leaders including Tony Blair, Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer. His suspension from Labour Party membership will lead to the automatic precautionary suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party in accordance with party rules. Mr Brown was first elected as an MP in 1983 and went on to serve as a minister between 1997 and 2010. Last year, Labour adopted a new complaints process, set up in the wake of controversy over anti-Semitism allegations. A 2020 Equalities and Human Rights Commission report into how the claims were handled recommended that the party put in place "long-term arrangements for independent oversight of the complaint handling process". Party members backed creating this new system at its annual conference in 2021." BBC News The key is he has been suspended whereas was Owen Patterson, Priti Patel ever suspended by the Tories and they whitewashed earlier allegations against Chris Pincher. |
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Sept 8, 2022 11:10:01 GMT 1
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62828438More parliamentary sleaze in the Labour party. "Nick Brown MP has been administratively suspended from the Labour Party pending an investigation into a complaint. He is one of the party's longest-serving MPs but will now sit as an independent until reinstated. The Newcastle upon Tyne East MP says he doesn't know the nature of the complaint but was co-operating with the investigation. Mr Brown served as chief whip under five Labour leaders including Tony Blair, Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer. His suspension from Labour Party membership will lead to the automatic precautionary suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party in accordance with party rules. Mr Brown was first elected as an MP in 1983 and went on to serve as a minister between 1997 and 2010. Last year, Labour adopted a new complaints process, set up in the wake of controversy over anti-Semitism allegations. A 2020 Equalities and Human Rights Commission report into how the claims were handled recommended that the party put in place "long-term arrangements for independent oversight of the complaint handling process". Party members backed creating this new system at its annual conference in 2021." BBC News The key is he has been suspended whereas was Owen Patterson, Priti Patel ever suspended by the Tories and they whitewashed earlier allegations against Chris Pincher. the key is , what are labour hiding ? the tories didn't do that 😜 |
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Sept 8, 2022 11:13:33 GMT 1
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62828438More parliamentary sleaze in the Labour party. "Nick Brown MP has been administratively suspended from the Labour Party pending an investigation into a complaint. He is one of the party's longest-serving MPs but will now sit as an independent until reinstated. The Newcastle upon Tyne East MP says he doesn't know the nature of the complaint but was co-operating with the investigation. Mr Brown served as chief whip under five Labour leaders including Tony Blair, Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer. His suspension from Labour Party membership will lead to the automatic precautionary suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party in accordance with party rules. Mr Brown was first elected as an MP in 1983 and went on to serve as a minister between 1997 and 2010. Last year, Labour adopted a new complaints process, set up in the wake of controversy over anti-Semitism allegations. A 2020 Equalities and Human Rights Commission report into how the claims were handled recommended that the party put in place "long-term arrangements for independent oversight of the complaint handling process". Party members backed creating this new system at its annual conference in 2021." BBC News Was reading about that this morning and seems unusual that there is no mention as to why he has been suspended. Perhaps we ought not to jump the gun before calling out sleaze.👍 He doesn’t even know which does seem strange….. But we’ll let Block14massive call it sleeze 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by wookeywombat on Sept 8, 2022 11:36:23 GMT 1
The key is he has been suspended whereas was Owen Patterson, Priti Patel ever suspended by the Tories and they whitewashed earlier allegations against Chris Pincher. the key is , what are labour hiding ? the tories didn't do that 😜 No they just said initially you have done no wrong in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Priti Patel's bullying was ignored completely by the Tories until it was proved by the parliamentary standards tsar. |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Sept 8, 2022 11:47:53 GMT 1
The new version of the register of members’ interests clarifies who paid for Boris Johnson’s recent party to celebrate his wedding last year. It was held at the mansion owned by the JCB chair and Tory donor Anthony Bamford, and Bamford donated the equivalent of almost £24,000, it says. The declaration reads:
Name of donor: Lord Anthony and Lady Carole Bamford
For my wedding celebration, hire of Marquee; portaloos; catering; waiting staff; flowers; ice cream van; smoke and braai; total value £23,853
No one thought for one second that Boris would dip into his own pocket for this. Indeed, his original plan was to get us to pay by using Chequers.
|
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Sept 8, 2022 13:50:58 GMT 1
The new version of the register of members’ interests clarifies who paid for Boris Johnson’s recent party to celebrate his wedding last year. It was held at the mansion owned by the JCB chair and Tory donor Anthony Bamford, and Bamford donated the equivalent of almost £24,000, it says. The declaration reads: Name of donor: Lord Anthony and Lady Carole Bamford For my wedding celebration, hire of Marquee; portaloos; catering; waiting staff; flowers; ice cream van; smoke and braai; total value £23,853 No one thought for one second that Boris would dip into his own pocket for this. Indeed, his original plan was to get us to pay by using Chequers. Come on that’s no fair….. how else do you payback for your Knighthood? |
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Sept 9, 2022 15:36:30 GMT 1
I think you'll find the knighthood was in recognition of Anthony Bamford's services to industry and exports....Oh! and providing employment to thousands of workers.
A minor detail which must have escaped your notice.
|
|
Says the person who has the most stilted outlook about everything on this board. There are/were plenty of capable Tories but they have been driven out by the Johnson acolytes.
