-
Isn't the vote to refer him to the Privileges Committee? So the Committee on Standards has no bearing here. Nice that someone knows what they are voting for.
And why can none of these cunts spell Sue Gray's name?
Otherwise ^ all of what was said above also.
I take it the MP in question isn't on the list here (fairly sure this isn't exhaustive though):
https://www.indy100.com/politics/tory-mps-boris-johnson-fine
c00ps-
Why do they get it wrong? I’d say a heady mix of entitled ignorance, arrogance and lack of interest as it doesn’t impact on their grift (my MP has a day a week consultancy fir £100k/year with a financial company in the British Virgin Islands. Who knew dairy cattle farmers in North Herefordshire had such in demand financial smarts. And that’s just what is declared).
Seriously thinking of standing at the next election just to participate at hustings and, whatever question is asked, respond with “what people want to know is that the sitting MP supports habitual law breaking and lying at the heart of government”. If that gets old then reference to said MPs huge and erroneous over claiming on expenses may be deployed. Obviously this is as pointless as tilting at windmills but with such a huge majority it feels like the only way to have a say in our broken democratic system. Crucially though, what would I call my party (of one)?
Big_Ted
This just in from my MP (took 4 emails, is obviously standard as does not address the points raised).
“ Thank you for your email regarding the Prime Minister.
I have received, read and listened to many differing and interesting points of view from constituents concerning gatherings at Downing Street.
As I have previously written, I reserved making my comments public until all the facts of the matter had been established.
That I why I have waited in the past for the findings of the Sue Grey report and of the Metropolitan Police investigation, which have not yet concluded.
However, the Speaker has determined that the House will vote tomorrow on whether to refer the Prime Minister to the Committee on Standards.
I shall be making my decision on how to vote based upon the currently available information.
Whatever your views on the details as you see them, I accept that that those who make the law must not break the law.
This appears to be the case, although the Prime Minister says he did not knowingly break the rules.
He ordered the enquiry, gave it evidence and accepted the role of the Police which has led to him being issued with a fixed penalty notice.
Therefore, I hope you agree that it is right that the Prime Minister has accepted the ruling of the police, paid his fine and apologised.
I do not believe that the Committee on Standards is fit for purpose, and have recently given evidence to them on improving the processes.
Whatever one’s view on the matter, the crux of the issue now is whether we should accept the Prime Minister’s apology or not.
I know that many people will not accept his apology.
I went to Church on Easter Sunday, and I find it helpful when making decisions to know what Jesus said :-
Luke 17 vs 3-4: “If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them.”
While I understand that many people will not, I accept the Prime Minister’s apology and will therefore continue to support his leadership.
I shall not vote to refer him to the Committee on Standards.
Thank you for taking the trouble to share your views with me.“
The bible quote is a lovely touch, both sad/glad that Ukraine was not referenced.
Wonder how many variants of this were sent out by Tory MPs…