Have a read at this unhinged, if attempting to disguise itself as rational, letter to
The Yorkshire Post. Proof that Yorkshire contains an un-nerving proportion of Tory cunts.
From: William Snowden, Burley-in-Wharfedale, Ilkley
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/n ... ff2b&ei=18
I hold no brief for Boris Johnson. But justice matters. And, reading Matthew Flinders's supercilious denunciation of Boris Johnson and his "hearing" before the Privileges Committee (The Yorkshire Post, June 24) I did wonder if Professor Flinders had any concept of the principles of English jurisprudence.
Boris Johnson likened the committee to a kangaroo court. It was certainly not a court of law, and its members were not jurists. If it had been, then more members than Sir Chris Bryant would have had to recuse themselves.
Why? Because the behaviour of the English judiciary is regulated by Rules of Natural Justice and Rules Against Bias, which means that anyone who has a predisposition towards the accused or defendant can not preside or sit in judgement.
And, in a court of law, there are strict Rules of Evidence, in which hearsay, for example, is inadmissible.
In the event, the committee failed to present any evidence to substantiate the charge that Boris Johnson's intent was to "knowingly mislead" Parliament (in line with the 1997 Resolution of the House). Instead, they engaged in supposition, speculation and even mind-reading : what he must have known or "thought". A presumption of guilt.
A "kangaroo court"? On a balance of probabilities, it would certainly appear so. And that is a poor reflection on the House and British justice.
Point 1: Although the Commons Privileges Committee is not a court of law in the way that other parts of the English judiciary are, it has a
quasi-judicial function. But not an absolute judicial function. It is based, as is the entireity of parliament, on the principle of the assumption of the honourabieness, truthfulness, and good faith of its members. The waffle from this twat is a piss-poor smokescreen, not unlike those deployed routinely by Rees-Mogg and Johnson himself.
Point 2: It is simply not possible, in any trial scenario, to obtain concrete, indisputable evidence of a defendant's
intention. The committee based its judgement on the balance of probabilities, supported by a welter of indirect and indicative evidence, that Johnson lied deliberately and intentionally to the House. It was not "supposition, speculation, or mind-reading".
"The opportunity to serve our country: that is all we ask.” John Smith, May 11, 1994.