News6 mins ago
Boris Would Have Been Suspended...
for 90 days had he not resigned. tbh, I am not surprised but it is a mucky game in politics and there will be more dirt-throwing, no doubt. The world still spins ;)
Answers
//i honestly dom't know what his cringeing followers want.// Ah, if all else fails name call. It seems quite clear from the posts above: An impartial set of Judges with the Chair in particular being impartial. And what is wrong with that?
11:22 Thu 15th Jun 2023
Naomi24 //I had expected anyone who watched OG's video to understand what they were watching. Oh well ...//
Yes, they were watching some idiot complain that the Privileges Committee had not followed procedures and processes as one might expect to find, in a normal court of law.
As I explained, the Privileges Committee is not a court of law (and so follows its own procedures) – what is so hard to understand about that?
Yes, they were watching some idiot complain that the Privileges Committee had not followed procedures and processes as one might expect to find, in a normal court of law.
As I explained, the Privileges Committee is not a court of law (and so follows its own procedures) – what is so hard to understand about that?
no or yes
I think there is a creeping realisation that a parliamentary ctee is not a court of law
but lawyers cant write a brief/opinion without words like "Court, natural justice, basic law to hear defendant and or accused"
because they feel they dont deserve their fee
Courts - are defined by the courts act 1981 - and you REALLY would expect lawyers to be aware of that, but some / alot arent
can you be a court but not named in the courts act? not sure, no I think - I think it is a numerus claus
can you be in the courts act and yet not covered by its privileges?
yes GMC is named but cannot commit for contempt....( held, not to be a court of record...)
there are no less than four opinions offered to the Boris committee on this subject
I think there is a creeping realisation that a parliamentary ctee is not a court of law
but lawyers cant write a brief/opinion without words like "Court, natural justice, basic law to hear defendant and or accused"
because they feel they dont deserve their fee
Courts - are defined by the courts act 1981 - and you REALLY would expect lawyers to be aware of that, but some / alot arent
can you be a court but not named in the courts act? not sure, no I think - I think it is a numerus claus
can you be in the courts act and yet not covered by its privileges?
yes GMC is named but cannot commit for contempt....( held, not to be a court of record...)
there are no less than four opinions offered to the Boris committee on this subject
Hymie re-read the privileges report
they go into p11 adn 39 I think
courts, procedure, and fairness
( v useful on fairness, "we are not a court but in order to fair....we have to do the following". - what ho! that counts as a precedent for any quasi legal process of which there are many ( some of whom are masquerading as courts).
they go into p11 adn 39 I think
courts, procedure, and fairness
( v useful on fairness, "we are not a court but in order to fair....we have to do the following". - what ho! that counts as a precedent for any quasi legal process of which there are many ( some of whom are masquerading as courts).
they also go into how to change rules if not fair
( which they are , phew thank god etc)
some are related to principles of common law prior to 1628.
others can be changed by a motion of parliament
others if they conflict with the act of 1689, will require an act
other still, can be changed by sing manual, of the Lord High foo-foo.
one phrase you can practice - far too long for the average ABer, and any Beeb fluffy is
parliamentary cognizance - - they can what they like if it is their business. Art IX of the 1689 measure (*).
it is all there but a helluva read ( heavy heavy heavy)
(*) why arteecle and not section? asks a thumbsucking ABer.
I think ( and bear in mind I know everything) there was no king ( throne declared 'vacant' hem hem) - so there was no one to sign it ( assent) and it was just there. - and has been taken as Law.
Problem is.... huge body of law and legal rules which we will probably never need again
even the shadow att-gen chucked in pleasure when she realised that she could call Boris a proven liar and not have her finger rapped by the speaker, and sent to bed early. Liar is verboten in the commons
( which they are , phew thank god etc)
some are related to principles of common law prior to 1628.
others can be changed by a motion of parliament
others if they conflict with the act of 1689, will require an act
other still, can be changed by sing manual, of the Lord High foo-foo.
one phrase you can practice - far too long for the average ABer, and any Beeb fluffy is
parliamentary cognizance - - they can what they like if it is their business. Art IX of the 1689 measure (*).
it is all there but a helluva read ( heavy heavy heavy)
(*) why arteecle and not section? asks a thumbsucking ABer.
I think ( and bear in mind I know everything) there was no king ( throne declared 'vacant' hem hem) - so there was no one to sign it ( assent) and it was just there. - and has been taken as Law.
Problem is.... huge body of law and legal rules which we will probably never need again
even the shadow att-gen chucked in pleasure when she realised that she could call Boris a proven liar and not have her finger rapped by the speaker, and sent to bed early. Liar is verboten in the commons
// In the youtube link provided by OG, the supposed lawyer is effectively making the same arguments as [Lord Pannick KC] ... //
Barrett even cites Pannick early on, in a passage below that I quote verbatim:
// None months ago, probably the most respected barrister in the land, who beat Boris in the prorogation case [and also the first Brexit case, on Article 50 notification], which caused Boris a huge amount of embarrassment and political difficulty and all the rest of it, who is in the House of Lords, who is a highly highly respected non-partisan figure, wrote to the Committee and advised them that they were messing up... //
The reference to Pannick being "non-partisan" is particularly noteworthy. It is, in fact, wrong. Pannick was on Johnson's legal team throughout these proceedings. He was therefore paid to provide arguments that favoured Johnson's position. He is indeed a highly-respected lawyer, and it's therefore not surprising that he tried to do his job of defending Johnson as effectively as possible. So that's point one: Pannick's opinion was not written, despite what this video appears to imply, from a "non-partisan" perspective.
It's important in that context to address the Committee's own reply to this: https:/
From the link above: // We are grateful for the advice we have received, in compiling this report, from the Clerks of the House and Office of Speaker’s Counsel, and from our legal adviser Rt Hon
Sir Ernest Ryder ... //
Ryder himself is a respected barrister and Judge, and while the same caveats apply to him in the sense that he'd be engaged in putting the case for his "clients" (in this case the Committee), it's still important to recognise that legal opinion on the Committee's approach to this enquiry was not one-sidedly against it. More relevant is the advice "from the Office of Speaker's Counsel", since at some point in OG's video (about six minutes in), the interviewer asked if the Speaker should be responsible. Well, he was. And he (through his office and Counsel, and also directly) approved their approach fully. As the response says:
// The view of our impartial legal advisers and Clerks, which we accept, is that his opinion is founded on a systemic misunderstanding of the parliamentary process and misplaced analogies with the criminal law. //
But, finally, the condition on whether the Committee's report and approach are acceptable is entirely on whether or not Parliament as a whole votes to approve it. This they will consider (and almost certainly do) on Monday. Assuming that Parliament does approve it, the Committee's approach was within the rules of Parliament and therefore Constitutional.
Barrett even cites Pannick early on, in a passage below that I quote verbatim:
// None months ago, probably the most respected barrister in the land, who beat Boris in the prorogation case [and also the first Brexit case, on Article 50 notification], which caused Boris a huge amount of embarrassment and political difficulty and all the rest of it, who is in the House of Lords, who is a highly highly respected non-partisan figure, wrote to the Committee and advised them that they were messing up... //
The reference to Pannick being "non-partisan" is particularly noteworthy. It is, in fact, wrong. Pannick was on Johnson's legal team throughout these proceedings. He was therefore paid to provide arguments that favoured Johnson's position. He is indeed a highly-respected lawyer, and it's therefore not surprising that he tried to do his job of defending Johnson as effectively as possible. So that's point one: Pannick's opinion was not written, despite what this video appears to imply, from a "non-partisan" perspective.
It's important in that context to address the Committee's own reply to this: https:/
From the link above: // We are grateful for the advice we have received, in compiling this report, from the Clerks of the House and Office of Speaker’s Counsel, and from our legal adviser Rt Hon
Sir Ernest Ryder ... //
Ryder himself is a respected barrister and Judge, and while the same caveats apply to him in the sense that he'd be engaged in putting the case for his "clients" (in this case the Committee), it's still important to recognise that legal opinion on the Committee's approach to this enquiry was not one-sidedly against it. More relevant is the advice "from the Office of Speaker's Counsel", since at some point in OG's video (about six minutes in), the interviewer asked if the Speaker should be responsible. Well, he was. And he (through his office and Counsel, and also directly) approved their approach fully. As the response says:
// The view of our impartial legal advisers and Clerks, which we accept, is that his opinion is founded on a systemic misunderstanding of the parliamentary process and misplaced analogies with the criminal law. //
But, finally, the condition on whether the Committee's report and approach are acceptable is entirely on whether or not Parliament as a whole votes to approve it. This they will consider (and almost certainly do) on Monday. Assuming that Parliament does approve it, the Committee's approach was within the rules of Parliament and therefore Constitutional.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Animals & Nature9 mins ago
Will Starmer - If He Wins - Be A Part...
News27 mins ago
ChatterBank31 mins ago
Is This The Worst Ever Conservative...
News36 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.