Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
No problem, I’m happy to wait. But you did ask.
Oh my apologies. How about proroguing parliament? Lying to the Queen? Lying to us that there would be no checks on good between GB and Ireland? Saying black people had “watermelon smiles”? Referring to his quarter-of-a-million pound salary as “chicken feed”? Lying to the press about how many EU people had applied for HGV licences? Lying about how many new hospitals would be built? Lying about how many new nurses we’d have?
Will they do you? Or would you like to add further perimeters to allow you more room to wriggle?
|
Again, nothing to do with this thread and I am not assisting you to go off topic and receive the ire of the mods.
Why don’t you give me a link to prove the assertion that the Conservatives were trying to let Paterson off the hook? The right of appeal would only let him off if the investigation was not properly carried out as he alleged.
I am very clear that an appeal would not have let him off the hook, unless there’s some evidence to the contrary of which I am unaware.
---------- Post added at 19:45 ---------- Previous post was at 19:44 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
|
More deflection. This is the Owen Paterson thread.
---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
Owen resigned in disgrace. The case is closed. The only question is the diminishing credibility of the Government after it’s hapless attempt at getting him off the hook. And whether hapless Starmer can make any inroads.
I suppose now at what point would you find the Government failing in any way, shape or form is a side question. But I suspect the rest of us know the answer.
|
How can the matter be closed when the Opposition keep droning on and hyperventilating about it?
The correct course of action now should be to review the procedures with a view to establishing a right of appeal, which is what the government wanted all along. The delay to Paterson’s suspension while that was being considered was not an unreasonable suggestion.
All credit to the government for saying it was wrong to conflate the two issues, but I have to say that given the faults in the investigation that Paterson pointed out, an appeals process would have looked into whether or not that was an appropriate argument.