New Tory Leader

[Barbe bleu 822]

25 minutes ago, horsefly said:

How many times do I have to say that the Paterson case should be read as an example to see how in EVERY case the Commissioner and Committee conduct the process of investigating MP misconduct. You are clearly not reading my posts correctly and are clearly too lazy to read the actual reports that I have linked. 

As for your claim:

'Im  not sure I agree with your analysis of rights of appeal either.  A defendant has an automatic right of a full appeal gearimg against a decision made in the Magistrates' Court.   Leave is indeed required to take it from Crown to CoA or CoA to Supreme Court but the application is nevertheless considered by an impartial judge or judges who will grant  once the for a full hearing if the case is arguable

You have in substance just repeated EXACTLY my claim that there is no automatic right to an appeal in a criminal case. A case has to be made for an appeal to be approved by an independent judge who can REJECT the application for an appeal hearing. The Committee for Standards is precisely an INDEPENDENT panel constituted by members of all the main parties and a MAJORITY of lay-persons. They listen to the case put forward by the accused and make an independent judgement regarding the fairness of the Commissioner's report.

As for your final point:

Be honest, if we were talking not of a Standards Commissioner investigation but of a police investigation would you be so keen to abolish the higher courts and accept that the police are entirely impartial and not prone to any form of conscious or unconscious biases? Given your past comments I suspect not.

This is both absurd and irrelevant. Where have I said there shouldn't be a right to appeal? My whole bloody point is that the current process for investigating MP misconduct does indeed include an appeal process. The EXAMPLE of Paterson's case demonstrates perfectly that he was given the opportunity (lawyers in tow)  to respond to the judgements that had been made about his conduct point by point. Try reading the actual reports. Paterson's EXAMPLE is true of the process in ALL cases. Finally the Committee for Standards is NOT remotely comparable to a body like the police. The Committee is constituted by members of all the main parties and a majority of lay-persons who are NOT MPs at all. Hard to see how you can constitute a more unbiased and impartial committee than that. Here is a link to its current membership (not that you're likely to bother clicking on it)

 https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/290/committee-on-standards/membership

I doubt many people click on your links to be honest!

I  agree that the committee is not like the police (the commissioner.is the analogy here) and is instead akin to a court of first instance.  The point I am making is that a court of first instance has a court above it and that this procedure is an anomaly by not having a higher point of reference.

As to rights of appeal if you lose in the Magistrates' you have an automatic right to a full hearing.  If you lose in the crown you can still have your case reviewed.  Judges don't just toss a coin to make decisions  on whether or not to allow a hearing, they read papers very carefully and come to a reasoned decision.    An 'as of right' appeals process from the crown does indeed exist even if there is no right to a full hearing.

As I have said to PC its not a matter that is going to be determined in the saddo corner of a regional football forum. I'm very pro individual protections, you are more comfortable with streamlined tribunals.  These are judgement calls and not matters of fact and no doubt there are benefits and disbenefits with both points of view. I doubt we'll agree on this so let's waste no more time on it.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[Barbe bleu 822]

3 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

 

 

Honestly, for everyone's sake please just put me on the ignore list. We clash far too much for this to be healthy for anyone.

 

[horsefly 4,297]

12 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

As to rights of appeal if you lose in the Magistrates' you have an automatic right to a full hearing.  If you lose in the crown you can still have your case reviewed.  Judges don't just toss a coin to make decisions  on whether or not to allow a hearing, they read papers very carefully and come to a reasoned decision. 

Something you really ought to try yourself before commenting without knowledge of what you seem happy to comment upon..

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

32 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I dont know if that was addressed to me.  If so, then I can only repeat that I think he probably was guilty of breaching the rules.   Even of it wasn't addressed to me I can say with some certainty that you are preaching to the converted!

No, it wasn’t aimed at you.

[horsefly 4,297]

17 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I doubt many people click on your links to be honest!

And that sums you up rather nicely. I provided the links so you had an opportunity to ACTUALLY read the reports you seem so happy to comment upon. But of course the fact you haven't read the reports in no way prevents you from commenting on them as if you had read them. So, you haven't read them, have no understanding of the processes involved in investigating and producing the reports, but nonetheless believe we should accept your thoughts on them as carrying some kind of authority. Tell me in what professional world would that attitude be regarded as remotely acceptable?

[Barbe bleu 822]

31 minutes ago, horsefly said:

 

I didn't bother reading the documents you posted.  I doubt many people do.

I'm sorry if that is a surprise or a disappointment to you. Furthermore, I don't  really care if some guy called 'horsefly' thinks my thoughts don't come with sufficient authority to be worthy of consideration, this is afterall a regional football forum! 

I've given my thoughts, I'm happy to have an exchange but once we get to the point of taking this all seriously we really need to have a think about our life choices.

If you want to be the top boy on the forum you crack on mate. I'll leave you to bask in the status this esteemed position provides.

 

Edited November 5, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[Herman 9,754]

I think most people are just confused why you are trying to defend the indefensible?! Even Bozo has thrown in the towel.

[horsefly 4,297]

8 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I didn't bother reading the documents you posted.  I doubt many people do.

I'm sorry if that is a surprise or a disappointment to you. Furthermore, I don't  really care if some guy called 'horsefly' thinks my thoughts don't come with sufficient authority to be worthy of consideration, this is afterall a regional football forum! 

I've given my thoughts, I'm happy to have an exchange but once we get to the point of taking this all seriously we really need to have a think about our life choices.

If you want to be the top boy on the forum you crack on mate. I'll leave you to bask in the status this esteemed position provides.

 

How pathetic! Many people comment on here having bothered to inform themselves first about the facts. You turn up, spout a load of uninformed tosh, and then bleat about other people's motives because they point out your lazy lies. Your sad attempt to distract from your tedious error strewn posts by questioning other people's motives says everything about YOUR motives and not other people's. You might be perfectly happy "not to take seriously" the machinations of a corrupt government, however, many of us do. There is only one person here who needs to consider his life choices and that's you. No one has forced you to repeatedly comment on this site yet that's exactly what you have done despite your disparaging comments about people who do post on it (so you're stupid enough effectively to call yourself an idiot; what a buffoon!). What sort of idiot posts his views about issues that he openly admits he hasn't bothered to inform himself about?

I suggest you take your own advice and **** off if you can't manage to discuss the issues like a serious adult. Your pathetic ad hominem jibes belong in the school playground, perhaps you should go away, grow up, and inform yourself of the facts before you make such a fool of yourself again.

Edited November 5, 2021 by horsefly

[Barbe bleu 822]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

How pathetic!

Oh shut up.

I made what was a small and perfectly reasonable point that I justified. You are free to disagree with me but you seem totally incapable of doing it in anything approaching a respectful tone.

Unfortunately instead of a calm discussion you adopted the usual hectoring; offensive; and morally and intellectually superior tone we all know you for. 

I concluded a while ago that you have a pathological need to silence dissenting voices and to receive some form of intellectual validation here.  I have tried to avoid you for this reason - it is simply tiresome to have a conversation with people interested only in themselves.  

That these pages are now barely read by anyone other than the true believers  should tell you something- as should Ricardo's angry reaction to you straying out of your pen and into other threads

And dont try make this about anyone else, it is you I object to , its  you that sets the tone and it is you that has a need to dominate and show off. No one else posts here to gain the status of the type that has clearly eluded you in life. 

At their best the pink un off-topic pages are a great place information and debate-   The virus threads have been wonderful and the pink un as a whole has a great and highly informed community. I wouldnt bother if it were not for these people.

 

...at their worst though the off topic pages....well they have you.

And, no, I didn't read your post properly, I merely scanned it.

 

Edited November 5, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[horsefly 4,297]

24 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Oh shut up.

I made what was a small and perfectly reasonable point that I justified. You are free to disagree with me but you seem totally incapable of doing it in anything approaching a respectful tone.

Unfortunately instead of a calm discussion you adopted the usual hectoring; offensive; and morally and intellectually superior tone we all know you for. 

I concluded a while ago that you have a pathological need to silence dissenting voices and to receive some form of intellectual validation here.  I have tried to avoid you for this reason - it is simply tiresome to have a conversation with people interested only in themselves.  

That these pages are now barely read by anyone other than the true believers  should tell you something- as should Ricardo's angry reaction to you straying out of your pen and into other threads

And dont try make this about anyone else, it is you I object to , its  you that sets the tone and it is you that has a need to dominate and show off. No one else posts here to gain the status if the type that has eluded you in life

 

  At their best the pink un off-topic pages are a great place information and debate-   The virus threads have been wonderful....

...at their worst.....well they have you.

 

 

Same old crap from the same sad old twa*t who can't be bothered to inform himself of any facts, but thinks he has a right to spout lies and not have those lies pointed out. You're even so stupid that you freely admit you can't be bothered to read about the very things you offer your feeble error strewn views upon. I make absolutely no apologies for pointing out your lies and gross non sequiturs, and the fact you can't be bothered to show the basic respect to others to engage in INFORMED debate rather than spewing out your dumb prejudices. The fact that sundry racists, xenophobes, misogynists and homophobes are far less visible on these pages is a great joy. I suggest you go join them in the comfort of the mind-numbing ignorance and prejudice you so clearly venerate. The opinions of ill-informed thickos like you are what have allowed the likes of this government to get away with unprecedented levels of corruption. Leave the serious conversation to those grown up enough to say something informed by the facts you tiny brained buffoon. 

[Barbe bleu 822]

.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Barbe bleu
Duplicate

[Barbe bleu 822]

11 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Same old crap from the same sad old twa*t..... Leave the serious conversation to those grown up enough to say something informed by the facts you tiny brained buffoon. 

Is this addressed to me or yourself!!? 

Let's both leave the serious conversation to others.  I don't think you are capable of serious conversation, not with your fragile ego, and you feel likewise. 

 Is it a deal that we both disappear for a week or so and see if the quality improves during our absence?

I didn't read the rest of your post. Probably more intellectually superior posturing. Probably also with a smattering of latin and the use of the words 'pathetic' and 'buffoon' ( the first invariably with an exclamation mark).  Thank g*d there wasn't a Weblink, followed by a huge amount of blue text and a month python quote.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[horsefly 4,297]

4 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Is this addressed to me or yourself!!? 

Let's both leave the serious conversation to others.  I don't think you are capable of serious conversation, not with your fragile ego, and you feel likewise. 

 Is it a deal that we both disappear for a week or so and see if the quality improves during our absence?

I didn't read the rest of your post. Probably more intellectually superior posturing. Probably also with a smattering of latin and the use of the words 'pathetic' and 'buffoon' ( the first invariably with an exclamation mark).  Thank g*d there wasn't a Weblink, followed by a huge amount of blue text and a month python quote.

Patheitc as ever! Of course you didn't read the post, because you NEVER bother to read the things you still feel entitled to comment about. Ignorance personified.

And let's get clear about your "criticisms" that I post web links. You're actually publicly complaining that I have posted links to the very report and committee meetings we are supposed to be discussing. It doesn't get much dumber than that.

Edited November 5, 2021 by horsefly

[dj11 377]

Would you 2 stop gaslighting, and get back to discussing Tory sleaze!!

[Yellow Fever 3,767]

11 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Ched Evans formerly of this parish was found guilty after an investigation and an independent panel of his peers.  He is probably quite glad that someone thought another layer of scrutiny after the crown court would improve things. 

 

That was actually very different.

The question about an appeal is to what, to whom and with what 'new' evidence?

Can you imagine the furore if an independent Judge was to rule against say Johnson (and his holidays or decorations) let alone Paterson - we've been here before with 'enemy of the people' from the same protagonists as Paterson's misguided friends.

No - the existing system is actually very good for MPS and fit for purpose. An independent commissioner investigates the evidence (and proposes sanctions if required) which then goes to the cross party standard committee to study and take yet further representations from all parties and then to act upon. The standards committee are of course MPs themselves fully aware of the realities of life as an MP and the conflicting interests and grey areas - hence any MP before them will get a very fair and balanced hearing.

I can't see how it can be materially improved - perhaps we can have 16 MPs on the standards committee not 14 - or two commissioners?

Truth is it works just fine for HoC and those that tried to subvert or corrupt the process got a very well deserved bloody nose. The 'changes' proposed will of course be quietly dropped in due course - self-entitled nonsense that they were. 

As to Paterson - well banged to rights.

 

 

[BigFish 1,986]

10 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

How many times do I have to say that I have no reason to doubt the decision in this case!!!? I appreciate you want to make political hay of this, I'm not stopping you but please do not misrepresent what I have said as a defence of Mr Paterson.

My post is not about this particular decision but about what a fair disciplinary procedure would look like.

I'm  not sure I agree with your analysis of rights of appeal either.  A defendant has an automatic right of a full appeal hearing against a decision made in the Magistrates' Court.   Leave is indeed required to take it from Crown to CoA or CoA to Supreme Court but the application is nevertheless considered by an impartial judge or judges who will grant  once the for a full hearing if the case is arguable

In effect then you can go 'one above' as of right.

We've been talking about criminal law but employment law also had a three stage process.   Investigation (by employer) leading to a 'charge',   independent employment  tribunal, employment appeals tribunal for points of law.

Be honest, if we were talking not of a Standards Commissioner investigation but of a police investigation would you be so keen to abolish the higher courts and accept that the police are entirely impartial and not prone to any form of conscious or unconscious biases? Given your past comments I suspect not.

This is just conflation. The punishment for the infraction that no one is willing to express doubts Paterson was guilty of is a 30 day suspension. That is not the end of the matter as the Tories now pretend or even too onerous a sanction requiring an appeal process. This would have allowed his constituents to launch a recall if 10% of them signed a petition and then there would be a bye-election. Only if these criteria were satified and Paterson lost the bye-election would Paterson lose his job. That is democracy in action, not an affront to natural justice.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I think BB you are sticking to your guns because you are so deep into the argument. There is no justification for an appeal for a matter such as a breach of Parliamentary rules. There are no grey areas. Just perfectly straightforward, did he break the rules. Yes or No. There is a set punishment. And that punishment is not punitive.

[Yellow Fever 3,767]

10 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I think BB you are sticking to your guns because you are so deep into the argument. There is no justification for an appeal for a matter such as a breach of Parliamentary rules. There are no grey areas. Just perfectly straightforward, did he break the rules. Yes or No. There is a set punishment. And that punishment is not punitive.

Agreed KG - but any 'appeal' would have to go back to the very same 'standards committee' who have just reported! There is clearly no new evidence or reason for them to change their mind beyond the tantrums of Paterson and his dubious friends. If there was new compelling evidence the HoC can still itself do anything it chooses as it has to vote on any sanctions!   

That's why an appeal structure is just a complete nonsense to start with. The 'checks and balances' are already built in with the independent commissioner and the reviewing unbound standards committee.

[Barbe bleu 822]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

That was actually very different.

The question about an appeal is to what, to whom and with what 'new' evidence?

 

If you are denied a immigration visa by the home office you have a right to appear at a tribunal. If you don't like that decision you can appeal to the immigration appeals tribunal. 

If you believe they you have suffered discrimination at work you have a right to a first tier tribunal. If you don't like the decision they make you can (on points of law) demand an employment appeals tribunal.   

If you are charged by the police you can demand a trial, if you don't like the court's decision  you have a right to have your case reviewed by a higher authority.

Each of the above starts with an investigation : by the Home Office, by your employer or by the police.  And each has  right to a fair tribunal and a built- in appeal mechanism. In each there are at least three distinct phases. 

I cannot see why it is so controversial to say that our employment and immigration law  and criminal codes of practice are mature and work and so MPs should copy them and adopt a three phase approach.  

The only reason not to copy processes used elsewhere (or rather, pretty much everywhere else) is if, I suggest, you believe that the standards commissioner is so far removed from the other investigators (police, employer, home office etc) that they are somehow more special than people who carry out an equivalent role elsewhere and is capable of being both an investigator and a fair and independent tribunal without contradiction or bias creeping in. I don't think that is realistically possible,  it's a matter of your judgement whether or not you agree.  There are no right or wrong answers and so it is futile to seek an absolute truth. You have your opinion, I have mine, both are valid and neither of us is in power!

Mine was a very small and simple point. I am still not sure why it should have attracted the level of vitriol it did, especially when I said that I had faith in the decision that led to all this. I guess this is the pink un though.  A powder keg just waiting to explode at any hint of a disagreement... ...repeatedly....

 

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[Barbe bleu 822]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

I think BB you are sticking to your guns because you are so deep into the argument. There is no justification for an appeal for a matter such as a breach of Parliamentary rules. There are no grey areas. Just perfectly straightforward, did he break the rules. Yes or No. There is a set punishment. And that punishment is not punitive.

No I'm sticking to my guns because I believe in my argument!

At the risk of being like a broken record I think that the committee probably got it right . By extension , if there was an appeals process P would still have been found guilty and could not have resigned citing comparative unfairness 

In this case maybe everything was clear and beyond doubt but there might be occasions when there are gray areas, or where the rules do need more clarity etc.    Mine was a very small and discrete point really and should not have been controversial! It was not a point really about P's case

[sonyc 5,510]

23 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

guess this is the pink un though.  A powder keg just waiting to explode at any hint of a disagreement

Not sure it is the Pink Un as a whole. I reckon perhaps 5% of folk defend their point of view to the end (on either side of the forum).

And views are just that....views. I always think "so what if I am wrong anyway" ....it isn't the end of the world. 

I know I'm someone who will try and step in a couple of times in the year in an attempt to smooth things. It is dispiriting to read the threads when arguments get very personal. The forum then becomes so much less.

The point I will make though is that we always learn more about ourselves from people we disagree with than those we agree with. And it's always worth learning things🙂 So I hope folk continue to post counter arguments. I'm quite confident they will. Quick apologies may not be possible - though a simple validation of another by showing their views have been heard but you don't necessarily agree I reckon will often suffice. If everyone followed that approach then the forum is improved no end. Just look at some other football clubs' supporter forums and threads to see how toxic they are. FB is the same.

Anyway, to follow my own guidance, a quick apology if I'm perceived as being a "softie" in trying to calm things down. In my former working life it was part and parcel of everyday life so maybe I can't help it! 

[Barbe bleu 822]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Agreed KG - but any 'appeal' would have to go back to the very same 'standards committee' who have just reported! 

Ah, this might be the clause of the frankly unpleasant exchanges.   When I talk of a right to appeal I don't necessarily mean that the appeal need be to a fully convened tribunal hearing the case in full again.

A right of appeal could, for instance, be only on a point of law by 'case stated' and might be dealt with entirely by written representations. It could be dealt with by a single judge appointed for the purpose, or for a judge assisted by two MPs, one of either flavour .  I would say that the need for  whole new tribunal would be rare indeed.

There are many forms that an appeal could take but we never got to that point of the discussion.  It had all exploded long before then.

[Yellow Fever 3,767]

47 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

 

If you are denied a immigration visa by the home office you have a right to appear at a tribunal. If you don't like that decision you can appeal to the immigration appeals tribunal. 

If you believe they you have suffered discrimination at work you have a right to a first tier tribunal. If you don't like the decision they make you can (on points of law) demand an employment appeals tribunal.   

If you are charged by the police you can demand a trial, if you don't like the court's decision  you have a right to have your case reviewed by a higher authority.

Each of the above starts with an investigation : by the Home Office, by your employer or by the police.  And each has  right to a fair tribunal and a built- in appeal mechanism. In each there are at least three distinct phases. 

I cannot see why it is so controversial to say that our employment and immigration law  and criminal codes of practice are mature and work and so MPs should copy them and adopt a three phase approach.  

The only reason not to copy processes used elsewhere (or rather, pretty much everywhere else) is if, I suggest, you believe that the standards commissioner is so far removed from the other investigators (police, employer, home office etc) that they are somehow more special than people who carry out an equivalent role elsewhere and is capable of being both an investigator and a fair and independent tribunal without contradiction or bias creeping in. I don't think that is realistically possible,  it's a matter of your judgement whether or not you agree.  There are no right or wrong answers and so it is futile to seek an absolute truth. You have your opinion, I have mine, both are valid and neither of us is in power!

Mine was a very small and simple point. I am still not sure why it should have attracted the level of vitriol it did, especially when I said that I had faith in the decision that led to all this. I guess this is the pink un though.  A powder keg just waiting to explode at any hint of a disagreement... ...repeatedly....

 

 

 

 

I ask again - Who would you appeal too ? 

The highest 'court' in the land is the HoC. They have delegated that authority to the Standards Committee which is in effect the HoC anyway. Of course we could have a written constitution and a Judge or indeed 'President / Head of State' elected or otherwise who could just override the HoC in these circumstances.  

All you can do is send it back to the Standards Committee if you've got new COMPELLING evidence - .but they've already come to a very recent conclusion anyway.

What your in danger of is keep asking the same question and expecting a different answer because you didn't like the first one. 

Edited November 5, 2021 by Yellow Fever

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

16 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

No I'm sticking to my guns because I believe in my argument!

At the risk of being like a broken record I think that the committee probably got it right . By extension , if there was an appeals process P would still have been found guilty and could not have resigned citing comparative unfairness 

In this case maybe everything was clear and beyond doubt but there might be occasions when there are gray areas, or where the rules do need more clarity etc.    Mine was a very small and discrete point really and should not have been controversial! It was not a point really about P's case

But the appeals committee would just be made up of some different people to those who heard the case in the first place. All other appeals are totally different in their composition. So if you wish to emulate them you would need a very rigorous and lengthy mediation and arbitration system if not recourse to the legal system.

He admitted his guilt by blaming his wife's death. Yet he sat there in Parliament throughout the debate knowing he was guilty of breaking Parliamentary rules and allowing important matters to be shelved while it took place.

Dawn Butler stepped over the mark according to the speaker and was dismissed from the chamber because she wouldn't withdraw the remark. Fair enough. Do we want her to ask for an appeal against the speaker?

[Yellow Fever 3,767]

14 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

But the appeals committee would just be made up of some different people to those who heard the case in the first place. All other appeals are totally different in their composition. So if you wish to emulate them you would need a very rigorous and lengthy mediation and arbitration system if not recourse to the legal system.

We agree KG. An 'appeal' to what? Truthfully the 'appeal request' was a throw away line from Paterson picked up his ever more dubious politicizing mates when he had already exhausted all of his so called natural justice 'appeals'. It was just a distraction.

I'd be delighted if we could have a judicial system overlooking parliament with teeth as opposed to 'club' rules. My guess is Johnson would find it extremely uncomfortable.

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

42 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I ask again - Who would you appeal too ? 

The highest 'court' in the land is the HoC. They have delegated that authority to the Standards Committee which is in effect the HoC anyway. Of course we could have a written constitution and a Judge or indeed 'President / Head of State' elected or otherwise who could just override the HoC in these circumstances.  

All you can do is send it back to the Standards Committee if you've got new COMPELLING evidence - .but they've already come to a very recent conclusion anyway.

What your in danger of is keep asking the same question and expecting a different answer because you didn't like the first one. 

I asked him that a while back and he ignored me as well - as he always does whenever someone points out a gaping hole in his argument which he has no genuine, or even disingenuous, way of filling.

Same with the completely inappropriate retrospective nature of what he is so desperately trying to justify - he has no reasonable answer but rather than accept that he is in the wrong ,he simply ignores the question, pretends it was never asked and then throws his toys out of his pram when he gets challenged about it - its sad and pathetic (third time lucky perhaps with that comment - maybe he can be persuaded to change his dissembling ways but I'm not going to hold my breath 😀).

[Van wink 2,994]

55 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I ask again - Who would you appeal too ? 

The highest 'court' in the land is the HoC. They have delegated that authority to the Standards Committee which is in effect the HoC anyway. Of course we could have a written constitution and a Judge or indeed 'President / Head of State' elected or otherwise who could just override the HoC in these circumstances.  

All you can do is send it back to the Standards Committee if you've got new COMPELLING evidence - .but they've already come to a very recent conclusion anyway.

What your in danger of is keep asking the same question and expecting a different answer because you didn't like the first one. 

Having just looked this up it appears the Standards Committee has equal numbers of MP’s and lay members with equal voting rights. I don’t think it gets much better than that.

[Yellow Fever 3,767]

6 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Having just looked this up it appears the Standards Committee has equal numbers of MP’s and lay members with equal voting rights. I don’t think it gets much better than that.

Exactly - Off hand I can't think how to improve it in practice which is why I think the 'appeal' line by Paterson was just a throw away empty gesture. Empty.

The government, bruised battered and humiliated will now quietly dispose of any material changes.

[sonyc 5,510]

16 hours ago, horsefly said:

Earlier this morning Kwasi Kwarteng was calling for the Commissioner for Standards to "consider her position" on the grounds that, “It’s up to her to do that. I mean, it’s up to anyone where they’ve made a judgment and people have sought to change that, to consider their position, that’s a natural thing" 

There is a perfect logic in this. If he had some integrity then at least he might apologise ....but I doubt he will even do that.

Kathryn Stone has been the real target in this.

Johnson appears to have turned some of his party into 'yes men' and sychophants.  That said, I read that Johnson had made threats to some MPs before the vote that he would cut investment in their constituencies if they voted the wrong way. 

[Barbe bleu 822]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I ask again - Who would you appeal too ? 

 

What your in danger of is keep asking the same question and expecting a different answer because you didn't like the first one. 

Well it depends on how wide a jurisdiction you give an appeals process and how involved you want the process to be.

In the case of an appeal against a Magistrates decision the matter is heard in full by a judge or judges and they make the decision.  If this 'full' appeal route was emulated the matter would/could be heard by a separate standards appeals Committee.   Different people but with the same remit

That might be over doing it. In which case you could, for instance, limit appeals to points of law.    This is what happens with employment appeals tribunals or when a planning appeal decision is challenged.   There are,  of course, other ways of limiting the grounds on which an appeal can be made (and you have mentioned the issue if new and compelling evidence) but this is a common one.

In the case of an appeal on a point of law if the first tier tribunal was found by the second tier to have misapplied the law the equivalent of an appeals tribunal could hear the full case for themselves or send it back to the original committee or a replacement for re-consideration.   If no error in law was found the original decision would stand.   Points of law could be determined after an oral hearing or after a  simple exchange of written representations.

To bring it back to the present case Paterson has not, as far as I know, disputed the facts. He says only that the committee was wrong in law but he has had no opportunity to explain why they are wrong. It would be quite simple to give someone else in his position, say, 21 days to make a  case in writing.   Those written reps could then go to a suitable individual or panel for consideration.  Either that person has a point and the matter gets re-considered or they don't, in which case the original decision stands  and  no one can complain that they did not have the opportunity to have the matter fully explored. 

An appeals process does not need to be lengthy or difficult. There is no automatic  need for any further committees or hearings  and no need either for the whole matter to be considered again. At the smallest extent the appeals process could consist of nothing more than a form to fill out and an open minded and suitably qualified professional to decide if there are grounds for re-consideration by the same or another group. We could be talking about a process calable of being completed in a matter of days, or even hours if the appeal really is without any merit. 

There is an element of asking the same question until you get the answer you like but rights like these are the very building blocks of our judicial system. 

 

Edited November 5, 2021 by Barbe bleu