LessoftheLip
Well-known member
Natural justice. Nobody should need to prove themselves innocent when the accuser is unable to provide evidence of guilt.
Last edited:
This Lindsay Hoyle business
- Thread starter Legz
- Start date
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Do you work for the Post Office?
Starmer has a well-established record of lying. He is Johnsonian in his inability to tell the truth. He is the Boy Who Cried Wolf. On the balance of probabilities, he is unlikely to be telling the truth here.
Scrote
Well-known member
No. I work for the Ministry of Stating the Bleeding Obvious.
Starmer (and Hoyle) were accused of a thing. So far they've said the didn't do it and then came up with four different explanations of what happened. One of the ways you can tell if someone is lying is that they tend to over-elaborate.
Starmer also has form.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
I think he is upstanding in the murky world of politics myself, lest we forget he is in opposition to the most devious, lying and manipulative bunch of Tories this country has ever suffered.
I’m sorry but I believe Starmer more than the likes of you.
Scrote
Well-known member
He isn't (or at least wasn't) in opposition to the Labour members who voted him leader.
I don't expect you to believe me. But there's nothing in the public domain that you can use to prove I'm wrong. Which is telling.
Perhaps we need more transparency from lobby journalists but I doubt the politicians, aides etc. would be too happy with that. It smells too much of democracy.
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
What the hell has balance of probabilities got to do with anything? Your hatred of Starmer is bordering on the psychotic. Without confirmatory evidence from anyone, most rational people would conclude that there was no bullying or at the very least adopt a neutral position. You and some others on this thread are promoting the utterly absurd notion that because there is no evidence to back up Starmer and Hoyle's statements of denial then they both must be guilty but without offering a shred of evidence.
Honestly Jack, give it up now fella because you're just making yoursef look like a flat earther.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Can I just clarify that I didn’t mean ‘the likes of you’ in a derogatory manner or that you are not posting what you genuinely think is true, I meant that you are clearly agenda driven so your view is as unreliable, in my opinion, as any politician or any information for or against Starmer which is out in the public domain.
Politics just is not a space inhabited by angels and saints.
Scrote
Well-known member
Fair enough. And no offence taken.
I don't know the truth of the matter but then neither does anyone else on here. I'm guessing plenty of media folk have a better idea of what went on but the current push is for a Labour government and I'm guessing no-one wants to upset the apple-cart or get themselves put on the naughty list.
Hoyle did something that clearly benefited the Labour party. Either he was pressured or he's unfit for the role of Speaker. The excuses afterwards just sound like they've been made up by a committee to tick as many boxes as possible.
If Hoyle was worried about the safety of MPs why wasn't that voiced as his main concern in the first instance. Why was letting everyone have their voice heard more important? Accepting the official narrative makes no sense when you start to scratch the surface.
I think one of the problems is that Hoyle isn't a very strong speaker. He's not the most articulate and doesn't really command the respect of the whole House. PMQs is increasingly like a supply teacher covering the bottom set. If MPs are willing to disrespect his authority on camera then I wouldn't be surprised if they're trying it on off-camera.
Don't disagree but surely this is a reason for the tories to keep him in post. They could get away with Hoyle for another 5 years and then have 10 years with a tory speaker before anyones particularly tough with them.
The speaker is elected so needs to be broadly acceptable across the house. In practice, this usually means a compromise candidate; a long-serving member without a controversial parliamentary past. I can see why Hoyle was chosen to succeed the disgraceful Bercow, but I think it would be for the greater good if he was elevated to another place following the election.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Natural justice refers to "the basic fundamental principles of fair treatment.
These principles include the duty to give someone a fair hearing; the duty to ensure that the matter is decided by someone who is impartial; and the duty to allow an appeal against a decision."
It doesn't protect him or any of the others from being suspects.
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
1. Who is the accuser?
2. Who is being accused?
3. What is it exactly he/they is being accused of?
4. Who witnessed the supposed wrongdoing?
5. Is there any other evidence?
It's over 1 week since the event in Parliament. The SNP, Plaid and some disaffected Tories have put their names to a no confidence motion. Less than 15% of the total number of MPs. This isn't going anywhere and nor should it unless evidence is produced/1st hand witness statements are given.
I accept this will disappoint some.
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
This is what the Speaker said:
“This is a highly sensitive subject, on which feelings are running high, in the House, in the nation and throughout the world. I think it is important on this occasion that the House is able to consider the widest possible range of options. I have therefore decided to select the amendments both in the name of the Prime Minister and in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.”
He then explains how everyone would get a vote under Standing Order 31. He also explains there is precedent for this. Unfortunately it all ended in chaos when the Government withdrew their participation (having participated all day).
He provided further clarity in his statement after the vote:
“Today’s debate was exceptional in the intensity with which all parties wished to secure a vote on their own proposition. It took decisions that were intended to allow the House the widest range of propositions on which to express a view. I wanted to do the best, and it was my wish to do the best, by every Member of this House. I take very seriously—[Interruption.] No, the danger—that is why I wanted everybody to be able to express their views. I am very, very concerned about the security of all Members. [Interruption.] I was very concerned, I am still concerned, and that is why the meetings I have had today were about the security of Members, their families and the people involved.”
Doesn’t sound like a committee response to me. It sounds like someone who was concerned about the safety of members.
I don’t think it would have been appropriate at the start of the debate to start explaining that safety was the reason for the changes in procedure but you get a hint of that from his initial statement, namely that tensions are running high.
I understand you don’t like it Scrote, but you keep banging on about ‘conventions’ but can’t produce anything to back this up. Just because you stand in the corner shouting CONVENTIONS doesn’t mean you are correct.
Fundamentally the Speaker can do what he wants. A convention is ‘how something is usually done’ but he explained why there was precedent for what he did. There is no convention about Labour not submitting an amendment on an opposition day. The only convention that was broken was:
‘Under the standard procedures of the Commons, it is convention that on opposition days, if the government tables an amendment, this is the only one that is picked to vote on and be debated.’
It would figure that Labour can submit an amendment BUT if the Government also submit one then only the Government’s will be selected. The Speak broke convention by allowing both to be debated for the reasons the Speaker set out.
I know you hate Starmer and Labour but it is a stretch for anyone to say this is Labour’s fault. They are entitled to submit amendments. They are entitled to have meetings with the Speaker, as are the Tories, as are the SNP. The blame is with the Speaker for, guess what, breaking conventions…
You state:
but have you even scratched the surface? Seems to me that you are just taking a Tory media line and not balancing the whole situation out. Read the debate. It only really turns into a farce when Mordaunt pulls the Tories out of the proceedings. And why did they do that at the end of the day? Why not at the start? If you have scratched the surface these are the questions you would be asking.
Source: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...f8-7efc-430e-b434-829c57fa15f6/CommonsChamber
mercury_redstone7
Well-known member
I think Hoyle did the right thing, the SNP know Labour will soundly defeat them in the GE so are trying to cause issues politically and the Tories thought the them the Labour vote would see some Tories vote for it.
Seems the SNP and the Tories that interested in Palestine Israel war they abandoned what they set out to do. The Tories on here are getting worried now, their time is nearly up.
Up the Labour Party.
Seems the SNP and the Tories that interested in Palestine Israel war they abandoned what they set out to do. The Tories on here are getting worried now, their time is nearly up.
Up the Labour Party.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
I don't fully understand this statement. Are you saying that Hoyle did the right thing in protecting Labour from a SNP attempt to win votes at the next GE by introducing their motion, or have I misunderstood?
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
Neither statement was directed towards you.
HolgateCorner's explanation was accepted by Scrote and no offence was taken.
JackG offered no response to my comments. It's an oft used word to describe someone who is confused although I do recognise its association with mental health issues but clearly that was never my intention.
Regardless, I won't be taking on board any sermons from you about 'tone'.
Awaits laughing emojis................
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
That’s because you think that Hoyle’s reasons were to protect Labour. That is presumptuous when Hoyle himself, on the record, stated it was to:
“do the best, and it was my wish to do the best, by every Member of this House. I take very seriously—[Interruption.] No, the danger—that is why I wanted everybody to be able to express their views. I am very, very concerned about the security of all Members. [Interruption.] I was very concerned, I am still concerned, and that is why the meetings I have had today were about the security of Members, their families and the people involved.”
No one has asked the Speaker to correct the record from any side. So you either believe this is true or you believe he lied to the House. He has also not been referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner For Standards either.