Still waiting for Johnson to be charged with perjury before this one. This lot will begone soon so this is a lip service exercise imo. We have spent enough money chasing our tails with them. Just codify that MPs have to behave with a standard imposed. Obviously convention does not curtail scumbags like this.
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2023
17 points (94.7% liked)
UK Politics
6 readers
1 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and either a link to reputable news source, or be a text post.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
We are friends with [email protected], a uk news community on a more general site.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It’s essentially an honour based system so there’s no real consequences.
Although… I do wonder if there are grounds for the charge of misconduct in a public office. Johnson’s behaviour seems to meet some of the tests set by CPS but I expect it would need to be referred to them and that will never happen.
The committee said he lied while under oath in giving evidence to the committee. If proven this is perjury. That is not held under a convention, this is law.
If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment . . . F1 for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.
The Commons Privileges Committee is not a judicial proceeding. It operates according to the rules and conventions of the UK Parliament. It is separate from the legal process, because only parliamentarians can make decisions about issues of parliamentary privilege. (Verbatim definition from parliament.uk above) So whilst I’d love to agree with you, the law cannot be applied because it is not a “judicial proceeding” by definition.
Come on you cowards, issue them all with ten day suspensions.
I'm glad the report into the attempts to stop the other report has not failed.