Well Johnson

[transam]

Has been found out to be a porkie pier and a scoundrel Ref the released report

Blimey what a surprise

Seems he is not to happy with the commitee members that he set up
ToEnquire into his shenagins

Smogg has sprung to his defence quoting some bloke called wilks
He was an MP several
Hundred years ago

 

[noseall]

Has been found out to be a porkie pier and a scoundrel Ref the released report

Blimey what a surprise

Seems he is not to happy with the commitee members that he set up
ToEnquire into his shenagins

Smogg has sprung to his defence quoting some bloke called wilks
He was an MP several
Hundred years ago

Good riddance to the UK hating Brexiteers.
Hear, hear!

 

[fillyboy]

Good riddance to the UK hating Brexiteers.
Hear, hear!

Yes that's certainly what the remainers are saying. But hang on, what's brexit got to do with a slice of cake, Oh I see.

90 day suspension and withdrawal of Parliamentary pass for calling a kangaroo court a kangaroo court. Now the committee intend publish a further report on how Parliament needs to deal with MP's who call a kangaroo court a kangaroo court.

What's that you say Skippy?, the select committee are a bunch of ****s, you can't say that you bad kangaroo.

 

[SirGalahad]

Yes that's certainly what the remainers are saying. But hang on, what's brexit got to do with a slice of cake, Oh I see.

90 day suspension and withdrawal of Parliamentary pass for calling a kangaroo court a kangaroo court. Now the committee intend publish a further report on how Parliament needs to deal with MP's who call a kangaroo court a kangaroo court.

What's that you say Skippy?, the select committee are a bunch of ****s, you can't say that you bad kangaroo.

Why is it a kangaroo court? It was headed by a Tory.

Are you in an abusive relationship? I just cannot fathom why you pray at the altar of Boris?

 

[fillyboy]

Why is it a kangaroo court?

The UK parliament is considering sanctions for any MP who calls its internal court, the Committee of Privileges, a ‘kangaroo court’. It has apparently only just occurred to the committee to do this. We are supposed to believe it has absolutely nothing to do with any personal animus its members might have for a certain Boris Johnson (who, entirely coincidentally, used the phrase ‘kangaroo court’ in his resignation letter to damn the committee’s verdict on him). The committee is set to rule on Wednesday that Johnson deliberately misled parliament over parties in Downing Street during lockdown.

There is one small problem – what if the Privileges Committee is a kangaroo court? A kangaroo court is a real concept and a defined term. A good definition of a kangaroo court would be ‘a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted’, or ‘a court characterised by irresponsible, unauthorised, or irregular status or procedures’.
As early as September last year, Johnson’s barrister, Lord Pannick, wrote to the committee to express his concerns that due process was not being followed. (Pannick is no pro-Boris partisan – readers may recall he beat Johnson in the Supreme Court prorogation case in 2019.) The committee then published a rather rude dismissal of Pannick’s concerns. So, he advised its members again. And they chose to ignore him, again.

One of Pannick’s concerns was that the committee had changed the definition of what it means to commit contempt by misleading parliament. ‘Intentionally misleading’ parliament has a long-established definition in parliament’s own rules, Erskine May, which had also been agreed upon in past parliamentary resolutions. According to the committee, however, intent is ‘best thought of as an aggravating factor’ rather than a crucial component of the charge. This made it much easier to convict Johnson of contempt. Pannick also warned that the committee was using a weaker standard of proof – also making it easier to convict.

The committee also used secret witnesses, which is inherently unjust, and had no intention of giving Johnson all of the evidence or allegations that had been made against him. Nor was Boris allowed to be represented by a lawyer when he was cross-examined by the committee, as he would have been able to in a regular court case (although lawyer Nick Vamos did sit next to Johnson in his hearing, he was not able to act as barristers normally do). Finally, Pannick pointed out that neither Boris nor a barrister were allowed to cross-examine the other witnesses, which could invite a stitch up.

Doing any one of these things would be enough to make a court or tribunal, or indeed this committee, a kangaroo court. It turns it into a ‘mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted’.

Did the committee apply the existing parliamentary definition of what it is to mislead? No, it did not. Did it apply the principles of justice that evidence must be transparent, and that defendants must be able to defend themselves? No, it did not. Did the committee follow the procedures that a court of law would use? No, it did not. Instead, it was ‘characterised by irresponsible, unauthorised, or irregular status or procedures’. By doing all this, by abandoning standard procedures and justice, parliament stepped outside the rule of law.

The Privileges Committee may feel justified in how it has conducted itself, but it would be wrong to pretend it has followed due process. Worse still, the committee’s new plan is apparently to punish any MP who says the words ‘kangaroo court’, even though that is a fair description of the committee.

Personally, I would not use the phrase ‘kangaroo court’. I prefer to call it a show trial. A show trial is very like a kangaroo court, but it is brought about specifically to achieve a political end.

Boris Johnson is right – this is a kangaroo court

The Privileges Committee investigation has made a mockery of due process.

www.spiked-online.com

 

[transam]

Good riddance to the UK hating Brexiteers.
Hear, hear!

Says noseall the Uk hating RWR fruitcake

 

[transam]

I thought Harriet Harman chaired the commitee looking into the caper
She was appointed on Johnson’s watch !!!!

 

[Brigadier]

a kangaroo court

Behave, you tart

 

[Brigadier]

Smogg has sprung to his defence quoting some bloke called wilks
He was an MP several
Hundred years ago

They probably kicked plebs together, in the Ol' Smoke

 

[JonathanM]

Personally, I would not use the phrase ‘kangaroo court’. I prefer to call it a show trial. A show trial is very like a kangaroo court, but it is brought about specifically to achieve a political end.

It's not meant to be any sort of court. There are very limited punishments available; he's not exactly been sent to the gulag. It's more like a private club, with rules and a committee. It may not be a great system, but really this is hysterical nonsense.

 

[fillyboy]

It's not meant to be any sort of court.

I'm quite sure that it's also not meant to be the antithesis of a court. Does the fact they've altered the definition from 'intentionally misleading parliament' to simply 'misleading parliament' not ring any alarm bells.

It's still got to get voted through Parliament on Monday. If Parliament vote to accept their findings, I won't be voting for a mainstream party at any point in the future.

 

[JonathanM]

I'm quite sure that it's also not meant to be the antithesis of a court. Does the fact they've altered the definition from 'intentionally misleading parliament' to simply 'misleading parliament' not ring any alarm bells.

That's not exactly what happened. The criteria used was that only intentionally or recklessly misleading Parliament would receive a punishment. Inadvertent mistakes wouldn't be punished. That seems an entirely sensible and logical way to proceed to me. The severity of punishment would then depend on whether it was intentional or whether it was reckless, which is a common concept in many legal systems. I think most people would want some recourse to prevent the PM recklessly misleading Parliament. I don't know how many MPs have previously been referred for misleading the House.

The committee also claim Johnson was treated more favourably than previous MPs who have been referred, such as being given extensive (and very expensive) legal representation, and additional access to materials. But as always with Johnson, he's playing the victim.

 

[transam]

Any way johnson is no longer an MP so that’s that than ??

He is one of only 3 MPs (?) to ever get a 90 day suspension ( granted he is no longer an MP )

But hey ho

 

[noseall]

Yes that's certainly what the remainers are saying. But hang on, what's brexit got to do with a slice of cake, Oh I see.

90 day suspension and withdrawal of Parliamentary pass for calling a kangaroo court a kangaroo court. Now the committee intend publish a further report on how Parliament needs to deal with MP's who call a kangaroo court a kangaroo court.

What's that you say Skippy?, the select committee are a bunch of ****s, you can't say that you bad kangaroo.

Cry me a river. Boo fekkin hoo. You and MBK can mourn in public or private, no one cares. Boris is a shill and he's had his come-uppance - yet again.

Good riddance to the lying devious disgusting self-serving pitiful oaf.

 

[blup]

Yes that's certainly what the remainers are saying. But hang on, what's brexit got to do with a slice of cake, Oh I see.

90 day suspension and withdrawal of Parliamentary pass for calling a kangaroo court a kangaroo court. Now the committee intend publish a further report on how Parliament needs to deal with MP's who call a kangaroo court a kangaroo court.

What's that you say Skippy?, the select committee are a bunch of ****s, you can't say that you bad kangaroo.

The select committee are tory controlled brexxers.

blup