Forum Topic

partygate  cont

Well done Sunday Mirror

Barbara Shillabeer ● 728d27 Comments

Just a few points:1) It is not hair splitting to suggest that an accused person should be treated fairly. While there is an obvious difference between the work of the Privileges Committee and a criminal trial, the dictates of natural justice should apply to both.2) Chris Bryant honourably recused himself as he had previously accused Boris Johnson of lying. Why did Harriet Harman not follow his example? It may be the case that she enjoyed the confidence of the Commons, but justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. 3) Ministers have from time to time been forced to resign for lying to Parliament, but has there ever been a case of a minister arraigned for being 'evasive' and making 'recklessly misleading' statements? It seems to me that these are wholly new offences invented specially to condemn Boris Johnson. Could not Blair and May and many others be accused of the same offences? Those who condemn Johnson over Partygate often say that that there was one rule for Downing St and another for the rest of the country. Fair enough. But by the same token there seems to be one rule for Johnson and another for every previous Prime Minister in respect of statements at the Dispatch Box.4) I don't agree that the term 'recklessly misleading' is clearly defined. It seems to have been introduced to cover up a lack of evidence that Johnson deliberately lied to Parliament. Along with every other contributor to this Forum, no doubt, I think that Ministers should tell the truth at the Dispatch Box, but in my opinion a charge of lying to Parliament should be confined to matters of fact, not opinion. Just to take one example, Boris Johnson briefly attended two or three leaving gatherings where he said a few words and raised a glass to the departing member of staff before going back to his office. The Privileges Committee  rejected Johnson's view that these gatherings were necessary to maintain staff morale during lockdown and they concluded that in stating that no rules had been broken Johnson had deliberately misled Parliament. Now while the Committee is entitled to its opinion on these gatherings, Johnson's view is at least arguable. He, along with many others, including senior civil servants, may have genuinely believed that brief events of this kind (not drunken parties which at least one of them became after he left) were within the rules. I think it is harsh on this kind of evidence to convict Johnson of lying. And it sets a dangerous precedent.

Steven Rose ● 718d

Moreover it is a nonsense to make such comparison between the work of the priveleges committee and a criminal trial - though it would be great to see Johnson face a criminal trial for all his misdeeds.Parliament is elected by us to make laws and rules and that includes the rules they make to regulate their own behaviour and to hold each other to account in between elections. They have thus laid down the process by which they may hold their own to account and that process has been followed. Should they have laid down a different process, one more akin to a criminal trial, we could have seen a great deal more evidence gathered, more forensically and Johnson arrested then interviewed under caution. Then we could have seen him cross-examined in court, umder oath, by a skilled prosecuting barrister rather than by effetes such as Bernard Jenkin, facing a charge of perjury when he lied further. That would all have been great fun and the result the same - Johnson guilty as charged. The sentence would most likely have been worse - a substantial fine, a ban from public office, if not imprisonment.

Michael Winstanley ● 719d

I think you have missed many points in your post.1)  Harriet Harman and the Committee was chosen by Parliament and the chair is always a member of the opposition.  It is stated in the terms of reference of the Privileges Committee.  Harriet Harman did offer to step aside but was asked to continue with her duty.2)  The Committee of Privileges is tasked with the investigation of potential contempts and breaches of privilege, as well as considering wider matters relating to parliamentary privilege from time to time, as instructed by the House. The Committee can only consider matters referred to it by the House of Commons as a whole. It reports to the House its conclusions on whether a contempt or a breach of privileges has occurred and its recommendations on any sanctions – final decisions on these matters also have to be taken by the House as a whole.  They are not judges and the ones who judged were the MPs in the HoC.3) I did not watch anything of the proceedings but the work of the Committee would have been viewed in a negative way if they were all drumming support for BoJo, very much in the same way that you are drumming it was all against BoJo.4)  The Committee was trying to establish potential contempts and breaches of privilege.  If this is the case, can they be impartial - in your words?  They need to establish the truth. I did not realize that their work was supposed to be similar to a "criminal court".  They were trying to establish if breaches of privilege had occurred.5)  It is impossible to state that BoJo did not know that he was breaking the rules.  He and his government imposed the rules and repeated them many times during public broadcasts.Kier Starmer, as a lawyer, was correct that he did not break the rules because, at the time of his "supposed" breach, gatherings were allowed for election purposes.From your point of view, BoJo was/is whiter than white.  From my point of view, whatever we did/does had/has an excuse.  I do not think that the law operates that way.  You either did wrong or not. 

Ivonne Holliday ● 720d

"1) A basic principle is that those called upon to judge their fellow citizens should refrain from making prejudicial statements in advance of any hearing. It is clear that Harriet Harman, having expressed  her view that Johnson lied to Parliament, should have recused herself, as Chris Bryant did."The Government wanted her to stay:-"The chair of the Commons privileges committee Harriet Harman has defended the work of her panel and condemned Boris Johnson’s Partygate lies – saying all prime ministers “must tell the truth”.The senior Labour chair clashed with Johnson loyalist Jacob Rees-Mogg in a feisty Commons exchange – telling him the government had backed her leadership of the cross-party committee.Challenged by Mr Rees-Mogg about her “famous” tweets criticising Mr Johnson and the “perception of bias”, Ms Harman said she had “made it my business to find out whether or not it would mean that the government would not have confidence in me if I continued to chair the committee”.She added: “I was assured that I should continue the work that the House had mandated with the appointment that the House had put me into and so I did just that.”" (Independent)https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-harriet-harman-rees-mogg-b2360419.html#comments-area"Unfortunately it is impossible to define what is and is not reckless."As far as I can see, English law does define recklessness.

David Ainsworth ● 720d

Johnson is a compulsive liar who finally has received some come-uppance. I have no interest in this hair-splitting nor do I think the majority are. With any luck we have seen the end of his political career, though take care - Berlusconi came back from a conviction for statutory rape.

Michael Winstanley ● 720d

I am not a fan of Boris Johnson nor of any politician, I think there is a lot of truth in the adage that politics is show business for the ugly people. But it seems to me that the Privileges Committee, while supposedly acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, failed to observe the dictates of natural justice in their Report on Johnson:1) A basic principle is that those called upon to judge their fellow citizens should refrain from making prejudicial statements in advance of any hearing. It is clear that Harriet Harman, having expressed  her view that Johnson lied to Parliament, should have recused herself, as Chris Bryant did.2) It is important that judges should ensure that their own behaviour is beyond reproach. It is alleged that a prominent member of the Committee,  Bernard Jenkin, attended an unlawful party in December 2021 (hosted by the Deputy Speaker in Parliament) to celebrate his wife's birthday. Jenkin has not denied this allegation, which, if proved, undermines not just his credibility but the credibility of the Committee.3) Those acting in a judicial capacity should ensure that their demeanour during any hearing is studiously impartial. I watched the proceedings in which Johnson gave evidence to the Committee from beginning to end and it seemed to me that some (not all) Committee members were openly antagonistic to him throughout .4) It is a long established principle of justice that laws should not be invented just to find a particular individual guilty. While it has always been the case that Ministers should not tell deliberate lies to Parliament, the Privileges Committee in Johnson's case seems to have invented a wholly new misdemeanour, namely making recklessly misleading statements. This particular innovation begs the question of why Johnson has been singled out. Should Tony Blair be investigated for having 'recklessly' led the country into war on the basis of flawed intelligence to which he gave undue credence? Should Theresa May be investigated for having 'recklessly' declared on over 100 occasions that the UK would leave the EU by March 2019 without a deal unless Brussels made concessions? 5) Laws should be unambiguous, otherwise they cannot be fairly enforced. Unfortunately it is impossible to define what is and is not reckless. Such things are often a matter of opinion.  If you genuinely believe something which other people consider incorrect, are you  being reckless when you say it is true? Did Keir Starmer recklessly mislead the public when he said no rules were broken at the beer and curry gathering during lockdown in the Durham constituency office? 

Steven Rose ● 720d

"Johnson never messed up the UK ..."Yes he did it single handed, without help, all by himself!As did the people before him and after him.We do seem to have some very remarkable PMs. We are truly blessed.

Ed Robinson ● 724d

Huh ... the Daily Mash is getting close with this ... pity for the rest of us it wasn't a dream and Johnson never messed up the UK ...https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/newspaper-columnist-wakes-from-dream-he-was-prime-minister-20230620236580

Michael Ixer ● 725d

Andy, at the time Starmer was meeting in Newcastle there was an addition to the rules allowing gatherings "reasonably necessary for the purposes of campaigning in an election or a referendum". Given, as far as I'm aware, Starmer's only reason for being in Newcastle was a by-election campaign it seems that he is probably (even if only just) on the right side of the rules, and the rules said nothing about beer drinking. Remember the rules kept changing so the Tories probably held their party at the wrong time, although one would expect Johnson to have been on top of the rules he was making; perhaps, given his legal training, Starmer is just more competent with these matters? I'm sure, in the interests of democracy, you'll agree that Starmer should have assisted in the campaign as we wouldn't like a single party state, would we? :-) Anyway, the real issue was not perhaps whether Johnson or his advisors, etc did or didn't have a party but that he mislead Parliament about it? https://northeastbylines.co.uk/keir-starmer-and-lockdown-rules-what-the-law-actually-said-about-gatherings-in-april-2021/

Michael Ixer ● 727d

Of course and I have made it clear that I disagree with ALL the rule breakers. Starmer may not be in Govt but throughout the pandemic he supported the govt lockdiwn, in fact he wanted to make them more stringent. Therefore his breaking of the rules is unacceptable, unless of course you are Durham police, who also accepted the nonsense excuse of Dom.

Andy Pike ● 727d

No, Andy, this is really irresponsible.Yes, Starmer had, as far as I know, supposedly one get-together.He is not in government, he is in opposition, unless I am wrong.BoJo, in government who made the rules and then broke them.I am a conservartive at heart, but, hand in hand, I do know the difference between right and wrong.  Do you?

Ivonne Holliday ● 727d

Funny how agreeing with Richard that the latest outrage is exactly that still gets the Mail slur attached.None of us were at Starmers drink and yet those in his camp on this forum are happy to dismiss it as nothing to worry about.My point was they are a the bloodybsame, tory, labour, lib dems they a broke the rules and lied.Michael it wasnt about the number of beers breaking the rules was exactly that. There was no sliding scale of rule breaking.

Andy Pike ● 727d

Hello Sue. locwly hearing your views again, even if I disagree!!!You will not be too surprised that I do not altogether agree with you.....The laws about COVID, were dictated by the government - of course with the agreement of the opposition - at times.What is happening now - and for some time too - is that those people who imposed the rules suddenly did not know they were breaking them!!!  😳😳😳

Ivonne Holliday ● 727d

Sue, or it could be the case was too weak? Perhaps it was zero alcohol larger, or - worse still - Budweiser (from the US, not Budvar!) :-)

Michael Ixer ● 727d

David. Perhaps I phrased the badly, but surely in their panic they've hired the arch-liar :-)

Michael Ixer ● 727d

Did you really:  "We just spooked ourselves into a moral panic, stampeded, et voila!"

Ivonne Holliday ● 728d

Shame that Starmer's Beergate got brushed under the carpet most likely because the Labour supporting Durham Police Commissioner and Durham Labour MP were their too and if exposed all 3 would have to resign creating a Tsunami in the Labour Party.

Sue Hammond ● 728d

"The Mail must be panicking now it's proven what a liar Johnson was"They can't be that bothered, as they have hired him to lie for them.I was having a quick browse of a 2011 biography of Johnson yesterday, and he was well known then for what he is. We just spooked ourselves into a moral panic, stampeded, et voila!- elected Johnson. I'm not sure that the stampede is over yet.

David Ainsworth ● 728d

The Mail must be panicking now it's proven what a liar Johnson was and now Brexit, based on lies, is falling apart.  Interesting to see what happens to the Telegraph now the Barclay family have lost control ...https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jun/07/daily-telegraph-and-sunday-telegraph-newspapers-to-be-put-up-for-sale

Michael Ixer ● 728d

Yes, it's rather like the Mail's feeble attempt to denigrate the Select Committee's devastating takedown of Johnson.

Richard Carter ● 728d

Richard, I do think Andy is rather clutching at straws there. A bottle of beer, possibly two; on the piss? That would, as they say, have some of my ex IT colleagues ROFL :-) 

Michael Ixer ● 728d

I really think trying to equate that one incident (the Starmer one, which the police examined but did not proceed on) with serial rule-breaking by the Tories in Downing Street and Chequers (which is even now under police examination) smacks of utter desperation.

Richard Carter ● 728d

Never said it was a party. Said they were on the piss.

Andy Pike ● 728d

Andy, if you think a beer with colleagues during a working break is comparable to a party with dancing and music, etc I'm glad I never went to the same parties as you; they must have been some really dull parties :-)

Michael Ixer ● 728d

We had to walk around scared stiff of catching something, worried about seeing family. Must have been loads using their phone just keeping in contact. Even children not having long to play outside if they lived in flats. My cousin in Somerset had hardly anybody at her Funeral and I had to watch on Video. All the plastic in the shops stopping you breathing on their staff, now they want you to serve yourself. Just like the Nationwide that shut down, they wanted you to use the machine. Then they said they are shutting down because not enough people used their Branch.  Wandsworth was really busy a couple of weeks ago in their Branch.

Barbara Stevens ● 728d

I absolutely agree with you Richard, but Angela Rayner? Wasnt she on the p... with Starmer up north but the local police turned a blind eye.Let's face it they were all at it.No govt in UK could ever get away with locking us down again. Just dont think people would abide by the rules.

Andy Pike ● 728d

I take it you agree with Angela Rayner that "Revellers openly mocked the rules the British people followed. The Tories think it’s one rule for them and one rule for everyone else. Instead of forcing them to face the consequences, Rishi Sunak has caved into Boris Johnson and chosen to reward them with honours. It’s a sickening insult.”

Richard Carter ● 728d