Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh
As I read it the suspension was of long enough duration that he could face deselection so a right to appeal the findings is needed before serving a sentence like that.
If the appeal fails then sentence should stand.
The whole system needs to be made much clearer but with proper checks in place and a clear appeals system that may kick in earlier if the punishment meted could have longer consequences that desired.
Plus parliamentary suspension should be the least of worries for those found guilty of corruption and the like, but all should be done in a calm and proper way, no witch hunts or whitewashing. And I'm sure that not all MP's simply voted along party lines but I'd hope many would thoughtfully consider all the implications of votes which is not something the great public always do.
|
If you or I displayed these levels of corruption and dishonesty we'd be in trouble with the police, I'm fine with that if they want to scrap the privilege of investigating each other, you know because they can't be trusted and be subject to the same rules and consequences as the rest of us
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
Taken from Twitter earlier:
In 2018, when Iain Paisley Jr was suspended by the Committee on Standards for failing to declare two family holidays paid for by the Sri Lankan Government, the Tories didn’t change the rules because ‘the process is unfair’.
In 2019, when Labour’s Keith Vaz was suspended by the Committee on Standards for expressing a willingness to purchase cocaine for sex workers, the Tories didn’t change the rules because ‘the process is unfair’.
In 2020, when Tory Conor Burns was suspended by the Committee on Standards for intimidating a member of the public, the Tories didn’t change the rules because ‘the process is unfair’.
Boris Johnson’s mate, Owen Paterson, reportedly takes half a million pounds and is suspended by the Committee on Standards for "repeatedly used his privileged position to benefit two companies for whom he was a paid consultant, and that this has brought the house into disrepute" and that "no previous case of paid advocacy has seen so many breaches or such a clear pattern of behaviour in failing to separate private and public interests", the Tories vote to CHANGE THE RULES because ‘the process is unfair’.
---------- Post added at 12:11 ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 ----------
I strongly doubt “common sense” had anything to do with this latest u-turn.
|
Of course it didn't, they want to be above any rules or laws and only backed down because in the press and publics eyes they'd gone to far. The more I see and hear I'm not even convinced this was about Patterson, he was a useful tool to use so bozo isn't investigated for his decorating or holidays, the ppe and test and trace fiasco/ thefts, hancocks sister etc etc etc
I heard earlier Krazy Kwarteng being asked if he could give one example of bozo promoting or upholding Standards in public life and the only thing he could answer with is we promised to get brexit done and did, really, seriously really and that exonerates the cabal from anything evermore?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy
I'm just pleased that common sense has prevailed.
|
and what, we just forget about it because common sense prevailed, they'd love that I'm sure