Claudia Webbe wants to make her own laws. Doesn't think she should have been tried in a White man's court. Didn't deny she threatened a woman with an acid attack, and the distribution of her naked pictures. Just said she shouldn't be tried in whitey's Court. Let's hope Labour never get in again whilst it is infested with lunatic identitarians, determined to poison the world with their disgusting racism.
No mention of the charming Owen Paterson so far? https://committees.parliament.uk/co...rt-on-the-conduct-of-rt-hon-owen-paterson-mp/ Aggravating factors included: No previous case of paid advocacy has seen so many breaches or such a clear pattern of behaviour in failing to separate private and public interests. Mr Paterson’s financial remuneration from Randox and Lynn’s amounted to nearly three times his annual parliamentary salary. Mr Paterson's actions demonstrate a failure to uphold the Seven Principles of Public Life. Mr Paterson has made serious, personal, and unsubstantiated allegations against the integrity of the Commissioner and her team. Mr Paterson is a former Minister, and an experienced long-serving Member of the House. The Committee determined that Mr Paterson’s actions, in particular those relating to paid advocacy, constitute a serious breach of the rules. The Committee found that Mr Paterson’s actions were an egregious case of paid advocacy, that he repeatedly used his privileged position to benefit two companies for whom he was a paid consultant, and that this has brought the House into disrepute. In line with previous cases of a similar severity, the Committee recommends that Mr Paterson be suspended from the service of the House for 30 sitting days. The corrupt ******* is now trying to blame the investigation for the suicide of his wife (coincidentally? chair of Aintree Racecourse, home of the Randox Grand National). However this was not mentioned at the time, of course. At inquest: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-56677355 "Never a minute goes by when I do not think 'how on earth did I not notice?', Owen Paterson said. Yesterday: https://www.owenpaterson.org/statement-regarding-findings-committee-standards "Rose would ask me despairingly every weekend about the progress of the inquiry, convinced that the investigation would go to any lengths to somehow find me in the wrong. The longer the investigation went on and the more the questions went further and further from the original accusations, the more her anxiety increased. She felt beleaguered as I was bound by confidentiality and could not discuss this Inquiry with anyone else. She became convinced that the investigation would destroy my reputation and force me to resign my North Shropshire seat that I have now served for 24 years. She would also be a casualty, forced to resign her post as Chairman of Aintree Racecourse and a Steward of the Jockey Club, two roles of which she was rightly enormously proud." In other unrelated news, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...sting-failure-awarded-new-347m-covid-contract The UK government has awarded a new £347m Covid-19 testing contract to Randox, the Tory-linked private healthcare company whose testing kits had to be recalled over the summer because of concerns about contamination. The deal is a six-month extension of an existing contract and was agreed without other companies being invited to bid.
Provided this is straight up, and Paterson is given the chance to respond, then he should have no place in Parliament.
Hooter right again. No response from Adonis... Those taken in by Adonis's BS, absolutely chuffed to have made a little bale of hay in such a short flash of sunlight. For the left, and remainers, It is not the truth that matters. It's saying nasty things about your parents, sorry, the tories, whilst you can get away with it..
Now searching for old posts to troll? You had absolutely no need to reply to this old post tonight. What a sad individual you are if this is what gives your life meaning.
I can take that. But the fact is I hadn't seen Goldsmith's post until about an hour ago. But you take it however you like. Any comment on the BS being spread by Adonis, which you unfortunately fell for and reposted on the forum? I did call it out immediately, but you were ignoring me then. Do you think it is important to post honestly? Or do you think it is more important to make a political point? Honest and politely asked question, and very relevant to this subject.
Privatizing the water companies was supposed as with the rail companies to lead to improvements in service, infrastructure and consumer service. On the contrary despite subsidies (funny how private companies often end up going cap in hand to the taxpayer to bail them out) generally the few improvements have been found is in shareholder dividends. After all the bottom line and that is maximizing profit is the biggest concern to investors. Macquarie are a perfect and hideous example of this. They bought into Thames Water pretending they would invest to improve infrastructure seeing a successful well like company. They left after siphoning off profits in the billions from increased water bills and a company in debt. They are also the same vultures who look to exploit water poverty in Australia by charging an arm and a leg for it. Now these same charlatans are trying to take over Southern Water. How can this be allowed ? Southern Water are another shining example of privatization. Like Thames Water which also started polluting watercourses as it's infrastructure could not cope or be upgraded thanks to the billions disappearing Macquaries way they have been doing the same thing. Discharging raw sewage into the sea because it costs too much money to treat and upgrading infrastructure would cost too much. It took a determined investigation by the EA to uncover the deceit and lies from senior management. Management who manipulated figures to try and show everything was going swimmingly despite rising levels of pathogens in water tested around Kent and Sussex. The fine of ninety million pounds is paltry. Many of the individuals involved should in a right thinking country be jailed. It's almost ****ensian. And this government with titface Johnson trumpeting soundbites about the environment are the ones who have cut the EA's budget. Beggars belief. https://www.theguardian.com/busines...into-uk-with-majority-stake-in-southern-water https://www.theguardian.com/environ...outhern-water-sewage-dumping-scandal-unfolded
One of the bizarre takes here has been the notion that cleaning it up would cost between £150-660bn and is therefore too expensive. The estimated cost is shorthand for ‘we’ve no idea of the cost, can’t be bothered to find out, so let us just carry on’
What do you do when you have been found guilty of breaking the rules? Bin the rules: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59143727 Absolutely disgraceful imho but they will get away with it and their loyal supporters won't care.
What I find most frustrating is the way his supporters are disingenuously attacking the process. They're deliberately leading people to believe the standards commissioner personally decided all of this and is now asking MPs to vote on it. In fact the commissioner submitted her report to the HoC Select Committee on Standards, which has 4 Tory MPs, 2 Labour, 1 SNP and 7 lay members on it. They produced a 173 page report having considered Patterson's rebuttal of the commissioner's work, including taking oral evidence from him, and dismissed all of his arguments. Rees-Mogg has made a fatuous point about Patterson's witnesses not being heard, but if a witness indicates they're going to give evidence about X or Y (and getting a preview of a what a witness can provide is perfectly proper and normal process) and those involve decide hearing about X or Y isn't going to change their view, there's absolutely no point calling the witness. I'm not sure the Speaker will call the Leadsom amendment anyway. But the truth is Patterson's main failing in the eyes of most of his fellow MPs on all sides will be that he got caught.
There is a worrying lack of understanding about both disciplinary processes and standards in general. Britain has a somewhat fusty, but actually quite robust approach to quasi judicial process. There is no reason to suppose that the properly constituted Committee cannot judge on this without fear or favour. Government should not undermine these processes. The attempt to plant Lord Dacre into the Chair of OFCOM is a quite egregious example of this approach undermining this confidence. The OFCOM panel looking at the appointment will be carefully selected senior people from a mix of lay, regulatory and professional backgrounds. They are quite capable of assessing an appointment on the criteria. Planting a political appointment into an organisation whose role is to regulate in the public interest is wholly wrong and as public figures are required by the Nolan Principles to be selfless his continued pursuit of the post demonstrates he is clearly not the right person.
It’s fundamentally undemocratic too, because if he was suspended his constituents could decide whether to recall him and force a by-election. This move by the Government prevents them from doing so.
He's got a fantastically safe seat and it might even turn out getting enough constituents to sign a recall petition will be a hard slog. I presume this is part of the plan? ie. even if MPs suspend him today, the hope will be the simple folk of North Shropshire will not be enthused by the thought of trundling out to a municipal building to recall him, given they've been told by party bigwigs that dear old Paterson has been given the rough end of the stick.
True enough. Even if there was a by-election it wouldn’t go to Labour, but maybe an anti-corruption independent would be in with a shout. But overall you are right, so the fuss is more about ensuring Tory MPs can only be held accountable if the Government wishes it. And that’s a high bar. God knows what they would have to do.
MPs have voted in favour of suspending action against Paterson. Though it seems 100 of the coward Tory MPs didn't vote.
******* corrupt ****s. How de we get rid of this absolute shower? The longer they are in the more they will rig the system to keep them there. Victor ******* Orban eat your heart out. Come on Tory fanboys, defend this.
The SNP refusing to take part in the proposed new committee which would have a structure of 4 Tories, 3 Labour and 1 SNP with Tory member, John Whittingdale having the casting vote. Good for the SNP. Watch the opposition shoot themselves in the foot as Starmer decides not taking part wouldn’t look ‘grown up’ for a party aspirant of whatever it is Labour are aspirant of and the Libs take the SNP seat saying Ooh, yes please!
Judge: (To defendant) You have been found guilty by the unanimous verdict of your peers. It is left to me to determine your punishment. Is there anything you wish to say by means of mitigation? Defendant: Before we get to that, I’d like you to consider this. We have a great opportunity to reform the system here…no hear me out.
Yes, a remarkable display of principles from Labour. No doubt it will eventually be spun by the Tory press that Labour has refused to ensure that there is a working Parliamentary Standards process.
Chris Bryant was very good on R4 talking about this (unfortunately I didn't catch Kwazi Kwarteng's rebuttal). Something I do find amusing is Paterson's claim to be seeking "...natural justice..." as here in the quaint, picturesque fishing village of the 'Wood that normally entails a skinful in the local Gammonspoons followed by a drunken brawl outside the kebab house - the Tories: Brawling Back Better.
I mean down the line. When there is a Committee comprised of four Tories only and a Labour MP is referred. This won’t be front of mind then. But at the moment it’s right for Labour not to cooperate.
The Tories have managed to convince their supporters that the Standards Committee, rather than being some cautious, process driven entity, rammed full of the great and good, is some sort of Kangaroo Court. Someone needs to ask the Nolan Sisters to rewrite the principles they drew up, which was an unexpected route they took once the hits dried up.
Man writes with theory about what it’s all for. And let’s face it, Paterson is a nobody. None of them care about him, surely? They don’t even believe he is innocent.
Not sure what is happening now and I don't think the government know either. Based on the JRM statement, are we to have a new standards committee while retaining the old one and also have a bespoke process for Owen Patterson? If the old committee is retained why does OP deserve a separate vote in the commons to decide if he is to be suspended? The committee has made its decision so it should stand now surely? I'm starting to think that the government really didn't think this through.
U-Turn after U-Turn. I've never seen anything like it. How do you follow someone that keeps changing direction and never gets to your destination?
No they don’t appear to have thought it through. There will be a new vote on Paterson. His Tory fellows may choose to uphold the suspension or decide to imagine that the poor luv was denied process. Bumpy either way for the Government, but saving Paterson isn’t really their greatest concern. Proposals will also be brought forward to have cross party discussions on reform. Fitting to see Daniel Hannan, who once held a party for free-marketeers in Africa at the EU’s expense opining that the system needs reform.
I have no sympathy for Paterson but to have a second vote when the first went in his favour actually does seem like a breach of natural justice - unless there was new evidence which came to light which would obviate the first.
It didn't go in his favour. It voted to suspend judgement until the new committee has had a chance to make representations.
