|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 23, 2023 8:52:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 23, 2023 8:54:53 GMT
Having watched it so far I can not see how they can find him guilty Unless of course there is a smoking gun somewhere where he has admitted in writing or on video that he believed rules were being broken Which they would of had to have shown to his defence prior to this hearing Is he a bumbling blustering incompetent unfit to run the country yes Do I think his interpretation of the rules was to liberally applied yes But how do you fairly interpret someone’s mind at the time of the statements without any hard evidence to the contrary Many times people have said stuff they believed and then found those things later to be untrue I can honestly believe because they way he managed his mayor of London set up he’s short on details heavy on alleged deliveries His heavy reliance on advisors rather than putting the hard yards leaving him exposed to the fact advisers tend to give there boss the answers he wanted Incompetent most certainly recklessly mislead parliament unprovable To be fair you've got it half right Whether he misled Parliament is not at issue, he did, Bozo accepts he did What is to be decided is whether he did so intentionally or recklessly His defense and what he told Parliament on several occasions is that he was assured by his advisors that no Rules were broken and all Guidance observed To my knowledge at least, it was only revealed today "his advisors" were his paid press advisors. Not his Cabinet Secretary or other Senior Advisors not the Attorney General who have specifically told the Committee they didn't give advice to Bozo advice on the matter, furthermore there are WhatsApp messages from them saying the Party's were against Covid Rules. Bozo says they never told him. The Committee is not a Court of Law but its findings follow the Civil Court in so far as they do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, just on the balance of Probability Assisting Bozo today was a Team of Legal Experts costing hundreds of thousands of pounds paid for by the Taxpayers While he was PM he had complete access to the best Legal Advice and other Advisors If we are to believe what he says he didn't seek their advice but instead relied on two Junior Press Officers employed directly by him. At best if this is true it is certainly Reckless if intent can't be proved A very good summary. I hope he gets a long enough suspension to force a by-election
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Mar 23, 2023 9:33:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 23, 2023 10:27:50 GMT
And to take this one stage further. I can't remember if the Committee asked him this explicitly, but WHY did he rely on the Junior Press Officers' advice rather than seek proper legal advice? If it was Boris just being Boris thinking it wasn't that important and he was going to get away with it and it was too much like hard work seeking proper legal advice, then surely that is reckless. But Boris is not an unintelligent man and I suspect he knew damn well that if he sought proper legal advice he would get an answer he didn't want so he made sure he didn't get that advice. In which case that is intentional. This was the entire thrust of the committee's questioning and pretty much set Johnson banged to rights, Jenkin in particular, nailed him on this specific point. That's why I was so surprised when you initially suggested that the comittee hadn't even laid a glove on him. The only question now, is whether they are going to charge him with recklessly or intentionally deceiving the House.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Mar 23, 2023 10:31:23 GMT
And to take this one stage further. I can't remember if the Committee asked him this explicitly, but WHY did he rely on the Junior Press Officers' advice rather than seek proper legal advice? If it was Boris just being Boris thinking it wasn't that important and he was going to get away with it and it was too much like hard work seeking proper legal advice, then surely that is reckless. But Boris is not an unintelligent man and I suspect he knew damn well that if he sought proper legal advice he would get an answer he didn't want so he made sure he didn't get that advice. In which case that is intentional. This was the entire thrust of the committee's questioning and pretty much set Johnson banged to rights, Jenkin in particular, nailed him on this specific point. That's why I was so surprised when you initially suggested that the comittee hadn't even laid a glove on him. The only question now, is whether they are going to charge him with recklessly or intentionally deceiving the House. It's pretty obvious to all that Johnson is going for the "didn't knowingly mislead/lie" position. Is it provable that he did? To me, that's where this all hangs.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 23, 2023 10:44:48 GMT
The fact that it can lose so much money every month, demonstrates that it is not a 'normal' TV channel. It's not a 'news' channel, it is in fact, a right wing propaganda channel. How can we have JRM (on his show yesterday) dissing the impartiality of the Privileges Comittee, whilst presenting it as factual news? Could you imagine any other news channel in the UK getting away with such bias? And god knows what is going to happen to all it's Tory MP presenters next year during the election. It is illegal (for very good reason) for sitting MP's to be presenters on 'news' shows during an election, personally, I believe this should be the case at ALL times, whilst they are members of the House.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 23, 2023 10:51:39 GMT
This was the entire thrust of the committee's questioning and pretty much set Johnson banged to rights, Jenkin in particular, nailed him on this specific point. That's why I was so surprised when you initially suggested that the comittee hadn't even laid a glove on him. The only question now, is whether they are going to charge him with recklessly or intentionally deceiving the House. It's pretty obvious to all that Johnson is going for the "didn't knowingly mislead/lie" position. Is it provable that he did? To me, that's where this all hangs. It wasn't until yesterday, that Costa got out of Johnson, who it actually WAS who he relied on for his claim that the guidance had been followed at all times. His answer proved that he was at the very least reckless, it will be up to the committee to decide between themselves if his actions were deliberate. The consensus between most political journalists seems to be that Johnson is going to be sweating for a few weeks.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 23, 2023 10:54:29 GMT
Yeah I know Sunak is worth 100s of millions. But Gary Linekar earns a million a year from BBC. Maybe Gary should be housing everyone who is struggling with money in his mansion.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 23, 2023 10:57:17 GMT
The fact that it can lose so much money every month, demonstrates that it is not a 'normal' TV channel. It's not a 'news' channel, it is in fact, a right wing propaganda channel. How can we have JRM (on his show yesterday) dissing the impartiality of the Privileges Comittee, whilst presenting it as factual news? Could you imagine any other news channel in the UK getting away with such bias? And god knows what is going to happen to all it's Tory MP presenters next year during the election. It is illegal (for very good reason) for sitting MP's to be presenters on 'news' shows during an election, personally, I believe this should be the case at ALL times, whilst they are members of the House. I know it makes huge losses. I know it pays tory MPs loads and I know it's directors are filled to the rafters with torys. But you got to realise its our only centrist news channel. All the others are lefties wokie echo chambers.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 23, 2023 11:28:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Mar 23, 2023 11:38:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Mar 23, 2023 11:42:27 GMT
And to take this one stage further. I can't remember if the Committee asked him this explicitly, but WHY did he rely on the Junior Press Officers' advice rather than seek proper legal advice? If it was Boris just being Boris thinking it wasn't that important and he was going to get away with it and it was too much like hard work seeking proper legal advice, then surely that is reckless. But Boris is not an unintelligent man and I suspect he knew damn well that if he sought proper legal advice he would get an answer he didn't want so he made sure he didn't get that advice. In which case that is intentional. This was the entire thrust of the committee's questioning and pretty much set Johnson banged to rights, Jenkin in particular, nailed him on this specific point. That's why I was so surprised when you initially suggested that the comittee hadn't even laid a glove on him. The only question now, is whether they are going to charge him with recklessly or intentionally deceiving the House. Fair enough. To be honest, without fully thinking it through, I sat down to watch it expecting (or maybe hoping) to see a prosecution-style grilling during which there would be a Sword of Damocles moment where he was well and truly caught out. Clearly though the Committee members had to be seen to be impartial and not act like prosecutors (JRM's kangaroo court).
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 23, 2023 11:51:53 GMT
Because of the favourable rates to tax on capital gains, Rishi Sunak pays the effective tax rate of someone earning £40k. What a terrible system we have where the wealthiest pay lower tax rates than the middle. Indeed. After months and months (years maybe?) of Sunak promising to publish his tax returns and not doing so, he finally does it on the biggest news day of the year. Funny that isn't it? And of course the timing was all just a coincidence because he has nothing to hide. 🙄 And it wasn't even a tax return that was published was it? It was merely an extremely brief financial summary produced by his accountant, providing next to no detail on how those earnings had been achieved. I've got absolutely no problem with rich people earning lots of money, what I have a problem with, is our rigged tax system, which has been designed to allow (in proportional terms) those rich people, to pay less tax than you and I.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Mar 23, 2023 12:28:15 GMT
Yeah I know Sunak is worth 100s of millions. But Gary Linekar earns a million a year from BBC. Maybe Gary should be housing everyone who is struggling with money in his mansion. To be fair he has housed several refugees
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 23, 2023 12:38:53 GMT
Yeah I know Sunak is worth 100s of millions. But Gary Linekar earns a million a year from BBC. Maybe Gary should be housing everyone who is struggling with money in his mansion. To be fair he has housed several refugees I'm just being sarcastic because certain members made a big deal out of Gary Linekar being a millionaire. But when it comes to our Prime Minister dodging taxs through legal loopholes they're nowhere to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Mar 23, 2023 12:46:17 GMT
The fact that it can lose so much money every month, demonstrates that it is not a 'normal' TV channel. It's not a 'news' channel, it is in fact, a right wing propaganda channel. How can we have JRM (on his show yesterday) dissing the impartiality of the Privileges Comittee, whilst presenting it as factual news? Could you imagine any other news channel in the UK getting away with such bias? And god knows what is going to happen to all it's Tory MP presenters next year during the election. It is illegal (for very good reason) for sitting MP's to be presenters on 'news' shows during an election, personally, I believe this should be the case at ALL times, whilst they are members of the House.
Couldn't you say the same about the bbc if the licence fee wasn't compulsory ?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 23, 2023 12:55:30 GMT
The fact that it can lose so much money every month, demonstrates that it is not a 'normal' TV channel. It's not a 'news' channel, it is in fact, a right wing propaganda channel. How can we have JRM (on his show yesterday) dissing the impartiality of the Privileges Comittee, whilst presenting it as factual news? Could you imagine any other news channel in the UK getting away with such bias? And god knows what is going to happen to all it's Tory MP presenters next year during the election. It is illegal (for very good reason) for sitting MP's to be presenters on 'news' shows during an election, personally, I believe this should be the case at ALL times, whilst they are members of the House.
Couldn't you say the same about the bbc if the licence fee wasn't compulsory ?
Sorry mate, can you qualify your question, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Mar 23, 2023 13:09:40 GMT
Couldn't you say the same about the bbc if the licence fee wasn't compulsory ?
Sorry mate, can you qualify your question, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
I think he's saying that without licence fees the BBC would also be losing millions a month. Then again, without licence fees the BBC would just add adverts to make up the shortfall. So all in all, not really applicable.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 23, 2023 13:32:48 GMT
Sorry mate, can you qualify your question, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
I think he's saying that without licence fees the BBC would also be losing millions a month. Then again, without licence fees the BBC would just add adverts to make up the shortfall. So all in all, not really applicable.
I suspected that might be his claim mate but I wanted to make sure before answering.
And of course you are correct, it not an applicable example at all, self evident by the fact that we don't have any Tory MP's presenting News at Ten on ITV.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 23, 2023 17:12:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by foster on Mar 23, 2023 17:22:39 GMT
Wish I had 300k over the past 3 years to even get taxed. Fucker
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Mar 23, 2023 21:43:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 24, 2023 0:48:45 GMT
And JRM told us that Johnson had won in the court of public opinion! 🤦♂️ And to think that it was US who paid the £250,000 for his defence ...
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Mar 24, 2023 6:09:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Mar 24, 2023 7:35:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 24, 2023 8:52:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 24, 2023 9:14:10 GMT
And yet cry foul when Sue Grey wishes to take up a new position. No question ACoBA requesting any of the 170 former Ministers to not divulge information previously received or wait a cooling off period before taking up new position The reason Civil Servants are held to a Higher Code of Conduct than ex-Government Ministers is obvious, because they have superior morals.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 24, 2023 13:26:53 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65061887When corrupt meet corrupt. Can't believe the antisemitism displayed by Sunak in agreeing to meet an Israeli PM found to have been corrupt which has impacted the lives of millions of Jewish people. Oh wait never mind. It's only antisemitism if you criticise the Israeli government. Forget the millions of Jewish people protesting... they must be antisemitic too for protesting against the leader of Israel I guess. That's how antisemtism works isn't it? At least in the eyes of the british media and government. The weird thing with alot of right wing parties these days is that they become more and more communist and anti democratic everyday.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Mar 24, 2023 13:40:09 GMT
The world turns a blind eye...utterly disgraceful.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Mar 24, 2023 13:50:54 GMT
Another loon who needs to fuck off pronto
|
|