The Conservative Party - Part Two.

[Longcol 598]

52 minutes ago, Tony said:

 

 

@Longcol the Commissioner shouldn't be making the decision in the first place after acting as investigator, prosecutor, jury and judge. 

 

 

Having had a number of years experience as both a manager investigating  workplace disciplinary hearings and as a union rep defending  disciplinary cases, the scenario in b) above is s exactly what happens.

 

Someone  carries out an investigation. They will then make recommendations to the relevant Disciplinary Committee based on the facts as they see them. The Disciplinary Committee makes the decision and decides the sanction.

 

It applies in every workplace - it is backed up by legislation and case law.

 

You might remember a good ten years ago on here when vResistance was championing the case of Tony Farrell, the sacked Principal Intelligence Analyst (ie statistician) with South Yorks Police who'd decided 9/11 and 7/7 were inside jobbies and therefore state criminality was the biggest daily threat to the good citizens of South Yorkshire,  and his subsequent industrial tribunal upholding the sacking.

 

Same procedure.

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2021 by Longcol

[Carbuncle 0]

49 minutes ago, Tony said:

I suspect that he's not behaved ultra vires

You may wish to look up the definition of 'ultra vires' as there was never a question of Paterson's "behaviour" being ultra vires.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Carbuncle

[Delbow 693]

What Tony is ignoring, because he's a Tory who wants to protect them from consequences for their actions, is that when someone is suspended from work it's to allow an investigation to take place. In any workplace the letter of suspension makes clear that this does not infer guilt, therefore his complaints that the commissioner is acting as judge and jury are just wrong. And @Longcol has already pointed out that the commissioner merely acts as a filter to decide who gets investigated by a committee, which Tony ignored in his rush to defend corruption.

 

He also pretends that everyone else would be treated very differently at work, ignoring the fact that many professions such as doctors, nurses, social workers, optometrists, pharmacists, even radiologists, have a professional regulator that can impose sanctions or suspensions regardless of what their employer does, and who are therefore not only subject to employment law but to an additional set of rules - a situation he seems to think shouldn't apply to MPs, even though the purpose of professional regulators is to protect the public and promote public confidence in their respective professions. 

[crookesey 632]

10 hours ago, Mister Gee said:

He doesn’t feel anything, he’s a Tory MP.

Now and again I need to be reminded why I don’t support any particular party or even vote anymore, thanks for that.

[Guest sibon]

Changing the rules after the event is an established Tory tactic. Enriching yourself by abusing your position is still considered acceptable behaviour. It is quite unbelievable.

 

Lest we forget Mr Hamilton:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1996/oct/01/conservatives.uk

Edited November 4, 2021 by sibon

[Tony 10]

8 hours ago, sibon said:

Employees are often treated differently to the law.

 

The major difference being that most employees don't get to frame the law, or the rules that fall outside the law.

 

If you can't see the problems with the government's actions today, then I despair. This is an absolute travesty.

Employees who have been treated wrongly have recourse to the Law, courts, juries, appeals, ACAS and many other dispute resolution mechanisms.

 

An MPs doesn't.

 

Do you understand this point?

 

 

 

And again - Vaz? What do you mean? 

[GinTreeS7 18]

I think the Tories have done a good job of handling this epidemic , considering it was unprecedented in modern times.

 

I dont know how Captain Hindsight would have handled it , doubtless we would be locked down for much longer and a lot more spending thats for sure ... 😞

 

[Delbow 693]

47 minutes ago, West 77 said:

That's my understanding.  The issue is the MP doesn't have a right of appeal which is why they voted to put an hold on the suspension.  The procedure might be changed and the MP might still be suspended.

In regular employment it is not usual for an employee to have the right of appeal over a suspension. They are still paid, so there is no material detriment, it's only the final outcome that is usually subject to appeal.

 

It's different in the world of professional regulation. If a regulator makes a suspension order pending the outcome of an investigation, that is regularly reviewed and the professional is able to be represented, plus they can appeal to the high court.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Delbow

[altus 538]

Is worry over future inquiries driving PM to change watchdog?

Quote

No 10 argues that the plan is simply about trying to create a fair system which allows an MP the right of appeal.

 

But one Tory MP believed the motivation for a shake-up was worry in Downing Street about further standards investigations coming down the track – particularly potential inquiries into lobbying over the award of Covid contracts, and into the prime minister’s loans from a Tory donor for the redecoration of his flat at No 11 Downing Street.

Note - it's a Tory MP who believes it's about future investigations.

 

Given the above, it's no surprise to see that the business secretary is suggesting the standards watchdog should resign.

[Guest sibon]

It gets worse. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/04/mps-standards-commissioner-kathryn-stone-kwasi-kwarteng-owen-paterson?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

Armando Iannucci would be proud of this storyline.

 

[whiteowl 54]

Government U-turn over the plan

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59163961

 

I guess they finally realised how sleazy it was.

[Carbuncle 0]

9 minutes ago, whiteowl said:

Government U-turn over the plan

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59163961

 

I guess they finally realised how sleazy it was.

More likely they realised how sleazy the public thought it was.