Owen Paterson

[BillyStubbsTears]

They did Filo. Not only corrupt but morally bankrupt too.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/inews.co.uk/news/brexit/mps-pairing-controversy-jo-swinson-177822/amp

Brandon Lewis was punished by being made a Cabinet Minister...

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bit of context here. This is the first time since WWII that a Parliamentary Standards watchdog has recommended sanctioning an MP only for the Commons to vote against it.

[wilts rover]

But it's NOT one isolated case BFYP.

1) Johnson's bizarre claim that he never thought to ask where the £1/4m he didn't have came from to pay for his gold wallpaper. He had that investigated by a person he himself had specifically chosen for the task.

2) The independent enquiry that found Patel to have bullied a staff member into resigning. Johnson said, no, Patel isnt a bully and refused to take any other action.

3) The cross party Russia Report that was incredulous that Johnson wasn't ordering an investigation into meddling in our elections. Johnson ignored it.

4) The Tory MP guilty of persistent sexual harassment. No action.

There's a pattern. No action will be taken in any circumstances that points the finger at the Tory Party. So they can literally do what they want.

And the biggest two fingers of all? Johnson has appointed at ex-Bullingdon Club chum as an ethics adviser!

Point 4 was brought up by Angela Rayner at PMQ's today.

Sex pest Rob Roberts was found guilty of persistant sexual harassment of a staff member by a different committee. That committee was not able to sack him or make him liable to a recall petition - unlike Patterson. The government said they were unable to change the rules on a live case.

Owen Patterson is found guilty - and they change the rules on a live case...

The rules dont apply to them - but if they do - they will just scrap them..

[wilts rover]

Some regular posters names missing from this thread. Something good on telly tonight maybe?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

But it's NOT one isolated case BFYP.

1) Johnson's bizarre claim that he never thought to ask where the £1/4m he didn't have came from to pay for his gold wallpaper. He had that investigated by a person he himself had specifically chosen for the task.

2) The independent enquiry that found Patel to have bullied a staff member into resigning. Johnson said, no, Patel isnt a bully and refused to take any other action.

3) The cross party Russia Report that was incredulous that Johnson wasn't ordering an investigation into meddling in our elections. Johnson ignored it.

4) The Tory MP guilty of persistent sexual harassment. No action.

There's a pattern. No action will be taken in any circumstances that points the finger at the Tory Party. So they can literally do what they want.

And the biggest two fingers of all? Johnson has appointed at ex-Bullingdon Club chum as an ethics adviser!

I don't disagree. It's not the point I was trying to make. When faced with the decision in 3 years time will voters care about this all that much or other things?

I know what I'm interested in and it's very different to the next person.

I don't at all like much of this indeed I don't like much of many politicians in all parties.

[KeithMyath]

I’m bereft of words with this scandal. How many more nails can they get in this Tory coffin lid. Waiting for the indefensible to be defended by a few on here, I’m sure this is what they voted for….

[bpoolrover]

While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case

Do they? why haven't they used any of the previous 11 years to do that?
 

I don't know ask them!
But yes you should have a right of appeal in my opinion, do you not think?

[Filo]

I’m bereft of words with this scandal. How many more nails can they get in this Tory coffin lid. Waiting for the indefensible to be defended by a few on here, I’m sure this is what they voted for….

Theres a few missing in action tonight

[SydneyRover]

While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case

Do they? why haven't they used any of the previous 11 years to do that?
 

I don't know ask them!
But yes you should have a right of appeal in my opinion, do you not think?

In a court of law appeals are often refused where the evidence is so overwhelming and there are no grounds, appeals are denied. The evidence in this case is all there and the offence being egregious was why this little used penalty was handed down by the X party inquiry.

[bpoolrover]

While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case

Do they? why haven't they used any of the previous 11 years to do that?
 

I don't know ask them!
But yes you should have a right of appeal in my opinion, do you not think?

In a court of law appeals are often refused where the evidence is so overwhelming and there are no grounds, appeals are denied. The evidence in this case is all there and the offence being egregious was why this little used penalty was handed down bt the  party inquiry.

that does not mean it is right, as said I think there should be a appeal process but it should not come in before this case

[SydneyRover]

While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case

Do they? why haven't they used any of the previous 11 years to do that?
 

I don't know ask them!
But yes you should have a right of appeal in my opinion, do you not think?

In a court of law appeals are often refused where the evidence is so overwhelming and there are no grounds, appeals are denied. The evidence in this case is all there and the offence being egregious was why this little used penalty was handed down bt the  party inquiry.

that does not mean it is right, as said I think there should be a appeal process but it should not come in before this case

Ok, present your evidence, tell me why, after looking at the report and the findings you think they have erred?

[drfchound]

In fairness, hats off to the 13 Tory MPs who had the guts to vote against their party on this one.

I wonder which way Don Valley arse licker voted, in fact without looking I know which way he will have voted

Just checked and yes he voted for it as expected, again Don Valley what have you voted for?

I saw an early afternoon news report which clearly showed that the Don Valley MP had voted for it.

[KeithMyath]

While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case

Do they? why haven't they used any of the previous 11 years to do that?
 

I don't know ask them!
But yes you should have a right of appeal in my opinion, do you not think?

In a court of law appeals are often refused where the evidence is so overwhelming and there are no grounds, appeals are denied. The evidence in this case is all there and the offence being egregious was why this little used penalty was handed down bt the  party inquiry.

I think with the independent committee using the word Egregious, instead of something most people will relate to like ‘utterly f**king shameful’ will see this scandal ignored by those who choose to.

[DonnyOsmond]

While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case

Do they? why haven't they used any of the previous 11 years to do that?
 

I don't know ask them!
But yes you should have a right of appeal in my opinion, do you not think?

In a court of law appeals are often refused where the evidence is so overwhelming and there are no grounds, appeals are denied. The evidence in this case is all there and the offence being egregious was why this little used penalty was handed down bt the  party inquiry.

that does not mean it is right, as said I think there should be a appeal process but it should not come in before this case

Ok, present your evidence, tell me why, after looking at the report and the findings you think they have erred?

He hasn't said their findings are wrong for this case?

[SydneyRover]

While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case

Do they? why haven't they used any of the previous 11 years to do that?
 

I don't know ask them!
But yes you should have a right of appeal in my opinion, do you not think?

In a court of law appeals are often refused where the evidence is so overwhelming and there are no grounds, appeals are denied. The evidence in this case is all there and the offence being egregious was why this little used penalty was handed down bt the  party inquiry.

that does not mean it is right, as said I think there should be a appeal process but it should not come in before this case

Ok, present your evidence, tell me why, after looking at the report and the findings you think they have erred?

He hasn't said their findings are wrong for this case?

I stand corrected DO, ok bp tell us why a rarely used penalty or procedure should be changed.

[BillyStubbsTears]

These actions in Parliament today were perfectly summed up by someone online today. He said the rules are in place to protect the powerful without binding them to follow the rules, while binding the weak to follow the rules without protecting them.

In that sense, I do understand why people have kicked against "The Elite".

But the genius of The Elite has been to direct folks' ire away from them and towards people who are actually on their side.

It's a tragedy of Homeric proportion.

[albie]

There is another aspect to this which is not being discussed in the media.

The punishment that Paterson would have received was a 30 day suspension.

So break the rules, take large payments for pushing commercial interests, trouser over £100k for your trouble.......when you might, on the off chance, be called out, go on "gardening leave" for a month!

To me, that just sums up the hole we are in with these wazzocks.

It doesn't matter if the wrong un' is one of yours, a Paterson or a Mandelson, it is the actions which are in question.

[BigH]

The irony is that it looks like Johnson has got his party to approve a change that means that many of his own misdemeanors can now be waved through.

Ever felt used Mr Paterson?!

[SydneyRover]

The irony is that it looks like Johnson has got his party to approve a change that means that many of his own misdemeanors can now be waved through.

Ever felt used Mr Paterson?!

I wouldn't think that paterson who is attempting to blame the umpire for his partners death instead of his own corrupt behaviour would give a shit BH.

[belton rover]

These actions in Parliament today were perfectly summed up by someone online today. He said the rules are in place to protect the powerful without binding them to follow the rules, while binding the weak to follow the rules without protecting them.

In that sense, I do understand why people have kicked against "The Elite".

But the genius of The Elite has been to direct folks' ire away from them and towards people who are actually on their side.

It's a tragedy of Homeric proportion.

Not as tragic as when he got home from work to find no Duff in the fridge.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Kwasi Kwarteng on R4 this morning.

Interviewer pointed out several of the examples of corrupt behaviour that have been listed in this thread. He asked if there was a single example of where this Govt had taken action on breach of ethical standards.

Have a guess what Kwarteng said.







No, go on. Have a guess...






He said (and I shit you not) "We delivered Brexit."

[Donnywolf]

Shambolic shameful & s***y

Paterson was bang to rights - most people CANT defend what he did - and instead "question" the procedure itself [as in he had no right to appeal]

Fine but he and every other MP knows there exists NO right to appeal - if you spend 2 years under investiation you can protest during that time surely  -  so surely he should abide by those rules

Sad as it was for his Wife who killed herself due to this process [Paterson said],  in Court people would say "calls for speculation" - that is unproven. IF true did he think before raking the money in " I had better not do this in case I get caught and the stress might be detrimental to my family"

No feathered his own nest 100 per cent - and clearly 100 per cent guilty

Amazing he also got to vote on the Amendment - as he was allowed - and how amazing/ironic  it could have been if it was carried by just one vote - his

Im glad Johnson cant call a Vote of Confidence in him and his Party [with an amendment by Mogg and allowed by Speaker that if he wins the Tories Govern forever] Why not they have corrupted every other thing they have touched

Broken my promise to myself to avoid commenting on Off-topic Politics so off back to Twitter - bye

[BillyStubbsTears]

I wonder why folk think all MPs are as bad as each other?

Nope....I can't think.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Meanwhile, Kuenssberg continues in her career as a Tory apologist.

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1455864027968647169

This is simply appalling journalism.

The case "dragged on" because Paterson repeatedly asked for and was granted more time to put his case.

[SydneyRover]

The Guardian has kindly put together a useful list of:

Owen Paterson: his claims and how they stack up in analysis

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/03/owen-paterson-his-claims-and-how-they-stack-up-in-analysis

[Not Now Kato]

Paterson now calls for the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to quit and Kwasi Kwarteng agrees with him. It's sleaze on steroids:
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/owen-paterson-tory-mp-resign-b1951220.html
 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Well, as someone once said, there's no point in having a revolution if you don't shoot the other side after you've won.

[Filo]

Paterson now calls for the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to quit and Kwasi Kwarteng agrees with him. It's sleaze on steroids:
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/owen-paterson-tory-mp-resign-b1951220.html
 

Paterson has said he would do the same again, that is a massive two fingers to everyone

[BillyStubbsTears]

So his defence is that he was merely contacting ministers to alert them about potential public health issues. Issues which had been raised by the companies who paid him, and which referred to practices by their competitors.

But here's a thing. Surely if an MP hears about a serious public health threat, they have a duty to bring that to the attention of the authorities? Isn't that part of their job? Why do they need to be paid £111,000 per year to do that...by companies who stand to gain massive financial benefit by bringing this to ministers' attention?

[SydneyRover]

this

Paterson’s claim: He made approaches to government bodies about two firms, Randox and Lynn’s Country Foods, which employed him as a consultant. The MP said he was acting as a whistleblower in raising concerns about milk and pork standards and that this meant he could claim an exemption from the rules regarding paid advocacy because he was raising a “serious wrong”.

Watchdog response: While this excuse would have been permissible for an initial approach, Patterson’s investigators said it did not cover his follow-up letters and meetings. “What might have been permissible in a single exceptional case, became Paterson’s standard practice,” said the standards commissioner, Kathryn Stone, adding that it “stretches credulity to suggest that 14 approaches to ministers and public officials were all attempts to avert a serious wrong rather than to favour Randox and Lynn’s, however much Paterson may have persuaded himself he is in the right.”

The committee agreed. It said Paterson’s follow-up approaches “sought to promote Randox products” by praising their “superior technology” and that he promoted other unrelated products from the company. “These were all attempts to confer a benefit on Randox, to whom he was a paid consultant,” it found. “At best, Paterson was relying on an exemption he thought probably existed but of whose terms he was unsure. At worst, Paterson was knowingly in breach of the lobbying rules.”

The committee also agreed that Paterson’s attempts to get one of Lynn’s Country Foods’ competitors to relabel their product so as not to compete with Lynn’s own nitrite-free goods, as well his asking for this to be promoted in the press, was not incidental.

Paterson was paid more than £100,000 for his work for Randox and Lynn’s, and the committee was clear. “The paid advocacy rule does not distinguish between lobbying for good causes and lobbying for bad causes. It only applies to lobbying for reward or consideration.” It added that Paterson “went beyond presenting evidence of a serious wrong” in his follow-up approaches to the Food Standards Agency about milk testing.