Jump to content
A Load of Squit

New Tory Leader

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

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. 

 

He had an opportunity on Wednesday. He could have asked Rees Mogg to give way on a point but didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be a lot more to come out about contracts and sleaze with this lot.... years. Only a matter of time. 

This is one example (click to read the additional points).

The Good Law Project could be busy for a long time.

Worst government in history?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

Indeed! 2 Labour members, 1 SNP, 4 Tories, and 7 lay members.  The lay members well outnumber representatives of any one particular party interest. As you say it doesn't get much fairer; certainly not Johnson's proposal to replace it with an MP only committee with a majority Tory Party membership. The fact remains that Paterson (and his two lawyers) availed himself of the opportunity to respond to Stone's final report (an appeal by any other name) and the committee unanimously found no merit in any of his objections. One only needs to read the report and the proceedings of the Committee for Standards to see that the case against Paterson was damning; hence the use of the word "egregious" in describing his breaches of the rules. But it certainly helps if one does indeed read the relevant material if one intends to comment on this specific case and the conduct of such disciplinary processes in general.

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, sonyc said:

There will be a lot more to come out about contracts and sleaze with this lot.... years. Only a matter of time. 

This is one example (click to read the additional points).

The Good Law Project could be busy for a long time.

Worst government in history?

 

Iain Liddell, the managing director of Uniserve, added: “The DHSC came to the right people as there are very few if any other companies that could have reacted so quickly … with the only intention of getting urgently required PPE to the frontline.”

The front line this time being Felixstowe Docks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look! Another person who didn't read the report but felt confident nonetheless to comment on it. Only this time it happened to be the cabinet minister Nadhim Zahawi who voted in favour of the government's attempt to sideline the report and change the rules. Just watch him make a complete **** of himself in the interview:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/tory-minister-says-he-didn-t-read-the-standards-committee-report-on-owen-paterson/vi-AAQlTM1?ocid=msedgntp

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, sonyc said:

There will be a lot more to come out about contracts and sleaze with this lot.... years. Only a matter of time. 

This is one example (click to read the additional points).

The Good Law Project could be busy for a long time.

Worst government in history?

 

In our history without doubt - in world history then I guess they have some stiff competition and definitely aren't even Premier League contenders.

Mind you if you narrow the field a bit by asking 'Worst supposedly democratic government in history' then even on a global scale whilst they might not have achieved Premier League status yet, they are definitely in the mix, aspiring to promotion. 😀

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

In our history without doubt - in world history then I guess they have some stiff competition and definitely aren't even Premier League contenders.

Mind you if you narrow the field a bit by asking 'Worst supposedly democratic government in history' then even on a global scale whilst they might not have achieved Premier League status yet, they are definitely in the mix, aspiring to promotion. 😀

 

You can be sure Boris will accumulate plenty of Russian billionaire's money to achieve  premier league status.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

In our history without doubt - in world history then I guess they have some stiff competition and definitely aren't even Premier League contenders.

Mind you if you narrow the field a bit by asking 'Worst supposedly democratic government in history' then even on a global scale whilst they might not have achieved Premier League status yet, they are definitely in the mix, aspiring to promotion. 😀

 

Oh I meant the UK! And maybe should have added in modern times too (say last 50 years). Think of how many U turns they've now achieved (over 30 were identified in the Independent yesterday). Think of criticism by their own side too (even moderate ones).  Better stop as there is too much. If it wasn't for this government I reckon I would stop posting here. Oh for a more benign, serious administration. Check out the Scottish assembly or the Welsh Senedd and you'll see stuff debated without all the hoohaa'ring our parliament suffers. It's more adult somehow and not as aimless or chaotic as Johnson's.

This is a football forum so I will suggest Slough Town in league terms is their level (lower mid table in the National South). With apologies to anyone on here who lives in Slough, or has special memories of Slough....etc etc 😂 I could just have easily have gone for Hemel Hempstead!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Oh look! Another person who didn't read the report but felt confident nonetheless to comment on it. Only this time it happened to be the cabinet minister Nadhim Zahawi who voted in favour of the government's attempt to sideline the report and change the rules. Just watch him make a complete **** of himself in the interview:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/tory-minister-says-he-didn-t-read-the-standards-committee-report-on-owen-paterson/vi-AAQlTM1?ocid=msedgntp

 

This seems to be another trait which flows directly from the example that Johnson himself sets - not only has he assembled a Cabinet of dimwits, selected without any regard for ability or experience but purely for their willingness to do Johnson's bidding, they are lazy, arrogant dimwits who think that being a government minister gives them a licence to talk absolute b*ll*cks on subjects which they know nothing about.

But actually admitting to not reading the report is more what you expect from the RWNJ Tory backbenchers rather than a Cabinet Minister but then perhaps that is where he is heading - after all someone is going to have to take the blame for this enormous fiasco and it cleary isn't going to be any of the three who should be shouldering it, Johnson, Rees-Smug, or Paterson himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Oh I meant the UK! And maybe should have added in modern times too (say last 50 years). Think of how many U turns they've now achieved (over 30 were identified in the Independent yesterday). Think of criticism by their own side too (even moderate ones).  Better stop as there is too much. If it wasn't for this government I reckon I would stop posting here. Oh for a more benign, serious administration. Check out the Scottish assembly or the Welsh Senedd and you'll see stuff debated without all the hoohaa'ring our parliament suffers. It's more adult somehow and not as aimless or chaotic as Johnson's.

I don't think you need to be so restrictive - the last time I called this government the worst government in history the only contender for the title that @ricardo could come up with was Lord North so that gives you 300+ years to play with, and fair dues at that distance it is quite difficult to do a fair comparison though Johnson still gets my nomination as worst ever.

As to the u-turns the Guardian also totted up around 30 but I think they are only counting the really big screeching u-turns not all the more minor ones. I seem to remember that for a fair while last year Johnson was averaging over one u-turn a week, I think three or four in his 'best' ever week, but fair play to him its been a while since he came up with one as spectacular as yesterday's.😂

One thing Johnson could never be accused of is learning anything from his previous many mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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.

Yes, I think the committee did appear appropriately constituted and I don't doubt members' diligence or intellect.   I also believe that there is no fairer system of criminal  justice than trial by a jury of your peers. And that  immigration, and employment tribunals are professionally and fairly run.

But just because a tribunal is fairly constituted and impartial doesn't mean that it will always get everything right.  That's the reason there is an appeal process in these areas of law and indeed in almost every other walk of life.

If I (or you)  accept that there should  continue to be a right of appeal against crown court, enjoyment tribunal, planning committee, or immigration tribunal decisions  (amongst any number of others) then there is simply no reason to think that anything less should apply to the equivalent tribunals that deal with MP behaviour.

Indeed ss my final point on this matter if there was no right of appeal because a fair and impartial tribunal will always get everything right then the government would have seen off the prorogation challenge in the High Court and there would be no Supreme Court to rule the move unlawful....


 

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly we are well on the way down the slippery slope to tyranny - the government changing the rules (or making them up) as it goes along to suit its own ends and being above or able to ignore criticism and dealing in lies and even bigger lies. One rule (or none at all) for them and one for us.

Trump came very close to a formal coup in the US debasing the election. Don't believe it can't happen here. There are many warnings from history and modern day states that have or already slipped down that sink hole.

It always start with nationalist jingoism, enemies of the people, working around democratic bodies for expediency and so on.

The real and final warning was Johnson's illegal prorogation of Parliament. Think about what he did and why he lied. Frankly the Queen should have dismissed him then and there and dealt with the constitutional crisis after the fact. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Barbe bleu said:

Yes, and there is no fairer system of criminal  justice than trial by a jury of your peers. And I also think immigration, and employment tribunals and professionally and fairly run.

 But just because a tribunal is fairly constituted and impartial doesn't mean that it will always get everything right.  That's the reason there is an appeal process in criminal law and indeed in almost every other walk of life.

At no point have I ever said that the committee system is unfair or anything  other than impartial.   I have also said repeatedly I think the decision in this case is likely sound. 

But if I (or you)  accept that there should  continue to be a right of appeal against crown court, enjoyment tribunal, planning committee, or immigration tribunal decisions  (amongst any number of others) then there is simply no reason to think that anything less should apply to the equivalent tribunals that deal with MP behaviour.

.

 

 

Two awards surely must go to you BB. Have to applaud your tenacity.

(1) Persistence under pressure

....."he demonstrated staying power when many others would have thrown in the towel...."

(2) Pedantry par excellence

....."in a sometimes crowded field he found room for many ways of looking at the same issue with subtle slips of the tongue and attempted to insert coded nuances into the meanings of words despite failing to win others over. He gamely fought on....."

😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

It always start with nationalist jingoism, enemies of the people, working around democratic bodies for expediency and so on.

The real and final warning was Johnson's illegal prorogation of Parliament. Think about what he did and why he lied. Frankly the Queen should have dismissed him then and there and dealt with the constitutional crisis after the fact

Indeed. Check out Umberto Eco's 14 features of fascism. The present UK government comes close to ticking every one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Yes, I think the committee did appear appropriately constituted and I don't doubt members' diligence or intellect.   I also believe that there is no fairer system of criminal  justice than trial by a jury of your peers. And that  immigration, and employment tribunals are professionally and fairly run.

But just because a tribunal is fairly constituted and impartial doesn't mean that it will always get everything right.  That's the reason there is an appeal process in these areas of law and indeed in almost every other walk of life.

If I (or you)  accept that there should  continue to be a right of appeal against crown court, enjoyment tribunal, planning committee, or immigration tribunal decisions  (amongst any number of others) then there is simply no reason to think that anything less should apply to the equivalent tribunals that deal with MP behaviour.

Indeed ss my final point on this matter if there was no right of appeal because a fair and impartial tribunal will always get everything right then the government would have seen off the prorogation challenge in the High Court and there would be no Supreme Court to rule the move unlawful....


 

I'm not following your argument BB, the Commissioner made findings, Patterson was informed and could then make further pleadings which were considered by the Committee constituted as I described. There is your appeal process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Two awards surely must go to you BB. Have to applaud your tenacity.

(1) Persistence under pressure

....."he demonstrated staying power when many others would have thrown in the towel...."

(2) Pedantry par excellence

....."in a sometimes crowded field he found room for many ways of looking at the same issue with subtle slips of the tongue and attempted to insert coded nuances into the meanings of words despite failing to win others over. He gamely fought on....."

😉

Haha  I am fighting on not because I actually care that much but because I am fed up with this forum constantly being dragged down by the zealot and the way he conducts himself on here.

I think MP processes should align  with employment law more generally, others disagree. Fair enough to them.  It's not a particularly big or important point to any of us, its very niche and  none of us can change these rules. In short, the existence or otherwise of a right of a appeal, however limited that may be, is not n issue really worth a fight over,  especially as there are  no rights or wrongs, only shades of opinion

I am continuing this pointless discussion only to make a point to myself if no one else that i am not required to fall in line with the status craving zealot,  even if the price of horsey heresy is bring called a 'buffoon', 'pathetic!' , 'a dilettante onanist' or an 'idiot'.

Bring back Bill!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were making a daft argument dafter and were called out. It's quite simple. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Van wink said:

I'm not following your argument BB, the Commissioner made findings, Patterson was informed and could then make further pleadings which were considered by the Committee constituted as I described. There is your appeal process. 

Exactly! All it takes is to read what ACTUALLY happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I am continuing this pointless discussion only to make a point to myself if no one else that i am not required to fall in line with the status craving zealot,  even if the price of horsey heresy is bring called a 'buffoon', 'pathetic!' , 'a dilettante onanist' or an 'idiot'.

Bring back Bill!

 

He never left😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

think MP processes should align  with employment law more generally, others disagree. Fair enough to them.  It's not a particularly big or important point to any of us, its very niche and  none of us can change these rules. In short, the existence or otherwise of a right of a appeal, however limited that may be, is not n issue really worth a fight over,  especially as there are  no rights or wrongs, only shades of opinion

Think Paterson has brought it all on himself really. His talk of the cruel world of politics" is fairly lame and indeed disgenuine. Surely, as an MP he will have known the rules about advocacy and what it means to be someone in public office. Quite incredible really. A moral ...well a far more moral issue than the technical details you've been advocating. If something looks so wrong it often is. Amazing too that he has used the tragedy of his wife's death much later in the day (to connect it with latest events) but not at the time it happened. 

It really was a sad day for our politics. Standards of public office (as well as civil discourse) are falling each day it seems.

Factor in then that the polls still show a tight lead for the Tories (but narrowing today). 

As for spats with others, I said my piece earlier. I always lose such requests (must have suggested moderation and kindness between posters 10 times over the last couple of years)....I've never had an influence there😐

Edited by sonyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Haha  I am fighting on not because I actually care that much but because I am fed up with this forum constantly being dragged down by the zealot and the way he conducts himself on here.

So, no actual interest in the truth whatsoever, no interest in the discussion,  just a determination to repeat time after time the same lies. Take a look in the mirror if you want to see what a zealot looks like. There's only one person dragging down the debate, the person who refuses to listen to the long list of people who have pointed out his errors, and persits in repeating them without the slightest attempt to research the facts. You would certainly get on well with Zahawi, he didn't read the report either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Think Paterson has brought it all on himself really. His talk of the cruel world of politics" is fairly lame and indeed disgenuine.

 

Sorry to be pedantic but I don't think there is such a word.

I think the word you are looking for is disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Sorry to be pedantic but I don't think there is such a word.

I think the word you are looking for is disingenuous.

Thanks Ricardo. I tried to change it would you believe on my phone as it came up underlined. Then it suggested it was correct! That was probably after I had suggested it by typing it to begin with 😂when I read it back it looked wrong but then i just thought "***k it"

I think (without looking one can be ingenuine or ungenuine but not disgenuine).

Not just you that can be pedantic!

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Van wink said:

I'm not following your argument BB, the Commissioner made findings, Patterson was informed and could then make further pleadings which were considered by the Committee constituted as I described. There is your appeal process. 

I understand this logic, it is a point PC made last night.

In normal employment law your HR department would investgate an allegation and would sanction you if necessary.   You could then take this decision  to an employment tribunal.  If you didn't like the outcome you could take it to an employment appeals tribunal on a point of law.

Now if you simply substitute the 'standards commissioner' for 'HR department' and 'standards committee' for 'employment tribunal' you would see that an MP has less protection than any other employee in the UK as there is no HoCs equivalent of a employment appeals tribunal. ( I think I heard that there is for members of the HoL) I suppose you could substitute a vote on a motion for an 'EAT' but the house isn't exactly an impartial body, a point perhaps proven by these events!

In a world where MPs (rightly) claim maternity leave etc to bring them in line with general law why make the exception here? Why not simply give them an EAT equivalent, it's simply done and won't require any more than some form filling and form reading.

If you don't like the employment law analogy you could undertake the same exercise in almost any field of law.  I have pointed out that immigration and planning decisions are made within a similar structure. The point is that there are always at least three  phases (three different reviewing bodies if you like) before a matter is finally determined. In criminal law five or six is not uncommon, more if you take side tracks along the way.

It really is a very small thing I am saying and not particularly important.  It's also  really very niche.

I could easily have said I think there should be another layer of protection, you don't but all opinions are valid so let's leave it there but I didn't as I saw value in the fight.

its worth the fight in my book only because i feel the need for there to be push back on the 'substitute teacher'...

.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, horsefly said:

So, no actual interest in the truth whatsoever, no interest in the discussion,  just a determination to repeat time after time the same lies. 

No lies from me and I do have a genuine interest in discussion. Unfortunately with your brand of zealotry and your need for top boy status  discussion is not what is available with you around.

 I don't like your antics or attitude and believe that you have been a plague on this place ever since you turned up during the other guy's sabbatical.

Shall we both take a week off, no posting from either of us to see if debate improves?!  Try to answer that question directly 

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

 but the house isn't exactly an impartial body

But the six lay persons that constitute half of the Standards Committee are. And I don't doubt the irony of your persistence about an appeal system is lost on the rest here. There is an appeal system, via the procedure this committee follows. That it is not in some separate stages is all you have to offer in defence of your failing claims. The irony here being that an appeal elsewhere is allowed on the basis of an error in law, or that the weight of evidence not supporting the verdict. You have provided neither. So outside this forum, and in the areas you speak of, you would not be allowed a second hearing. Never mind the huge number you keep posting. I am not sure chap, what your intention in this matter is. Other than to remove any doubt from the minds of others that you have more than one screw loose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RobJames said:

 

my intention at this point is to carry on a discussion and not be forced away from a thread by the holiday cover guy

I don’t actually care much about HoC disciplinary processes and I am certain that I have never had such a lengthy discussion about  HR procedures 

I think an appeal process in some form or another would improve the process,  others think differently. Either way its not terribly important to me, or to anyone else here I bet.

But the place holder guy needs to be told to **** off every so often. I've been at a loose end the last couple of days abs do was determined that there would be a discussion and that the necessary advice was given to the poor imitation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...