The Conservative Party - Part Two.

[Carbuncle 0]

9 minutes ago, Tony said:

It's neither here nor there who writes the Law, everyone should be subject to it in the same way. It can't work both ways.

 

Surely you agree?

Why are you piling nonsense atop nonsense?

 

Why not state some actual facts, give evidence for their truth, make an argument. In short, cut out the piffle.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Carbuncle

[Tony 10]

2 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

Why are you piling nonsense atop nonsense?

 

Why not state some actual facts, give evidence for their truth, make an argument. In short, cut out the piffle.

What truth?

 

@Longcol you too.

[Guest sibon]

2 minutes ago, Tony said:

What truth?

 

@Longcol you too.

Did he break the rules?

 

I know that you like simple questions, with binary answers.

[altus 540]

5 minutes ago, Tony said:

It's neither here nor there who writes the Law, everyone should be subject to it in the same way. It can't work both ways.

 

Surely you agree?

Employers define rules that their employees have to follow and define procedures that will be followed and consequences that will by applied upon breach of those rules.

 

The situation with MP breaking the standards they are supposed to abide by is comparable to employees breaching company rules rather than members of the public breaking criminal law.

 

Do you really think MPs breaching parliamentary standards should be subject to normal courts? Do you think they'd want or agree to be?

[Tony 10]

1 minute ago, sibon said:

Did he break the rules?

 

I know that you like simple questions, with binary answers.

No idea, it's a legal question. He's been subject to a kangaroo court without due process and the simple rights that you would expect yourself. 

 

I have my own opinions but so what? Seriously, people need to give their head a wobble. Standards should apply to everyone. 

[Longcol 600]

4 minutes ago, Tony said:

 

 

@Longcol you too.

Evidence for your claim that one person acted as investigator, prosecutor, jury and judge please.

[Carbuncle 0]

7 minutes ago, Tony said:

What truth?

 

Why don't you begin by educating yourself as to the relevant set of rules that Paterson was found to have broken. Next find out who carried out the investigation, who issued the report and recommendations as to sanctions and who had the power to accept or reject those recommendations and so forth. At that point you might be in a position to say something sensible.

[Tony 10]

2 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Evidence for your claim that one person acted as investigator, prosecutor, jury and judge please.

You need to understand the role of Kathryn Stone. 

[Guest sibon]

1 minute ago, Tony said:

No idea, it's a legal question. He's been subject to a kangaroo court without due process and the simple rights that you would expect yourself. 

 

I have my own opinions but so what? Seriously, people need to give their head a wobble. Standards should apply to everyone. 

It isn't a legal question. Its a procedural one. 

 

The procedure that he's broken is quite fundamental. Defend him if you like, but you are wrong. He's been trousering money at all of our expense.

 

I expected better from you.

[Longcol 600]

Just now, Tony said:

You need to understand the role of Kathryn Stone. 

So spell it out then.

[Tony 10]

1 minute ago, sibon said:

It isn't a legal question. Its a procedural one. 

 

The procedure that he's broken is quite fundamental. Defend him if you like, but you are wrong. He's been trousering money at all of our expense.

 

I expected better from you.

I'm not defending him Sibon. I'm attacking a system that treats MPs differently to you and me. Remember - it cuts both ways. 

 

If it helps, I think he's been very very foolish. Bearing in mind that lobbying is endemic and (I think) unavoidable in a modern and open capitalist democracy I suspect that he's not behaved ultra vires but that should be for a proper justice system to decide, not a single commissioner who is more liable to be partial than a properly established investigation and justice procedure. 

[Guest sibon]

5 minutes ago, Longcol said:

So spell it out then.

Yes, please do @Tony

 

You might want to give us your thoughts on Stone and Keith Vaz at the same time.

 

You were recently(rightly) critical of Vaz, weren't you?

Just now, Tony said:

I'm not defending him Sibon. I'm attacking a system that treats MPs differently to you and me. Remember - it cuts both ways. 

 

If it helps, I think he's been very very foolish. Bearing in mind that lobbying is endemic and (I think) unavoidable in a modern and open capitalist democracy I suspect that he's not behaved ultra vires but that should be for a proper justice system to decide, not a single commissioner who is more liable to be partial than a properly established investigation and justice procedure. 

He's an ex minister who has operated incorrectly under an established code . 

 

He knew what he was doing. He's abused his position. He deserves everything he gets. In my opinion, he should be under police investigation for fraud.