| I know who I believe Hancock on 09:29 - Mar 1 with 1232 views | DJR |
I am no fan of Hancock, but I think the best way to get to the bottom of issues such as this is to have an independent inquiry. But whether we have one is perhaps a moot point, given the outcome of past government inquiries. [Post edited 1 Mar 2023 9:29]
|  | |  |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 10:01 - Mar 1 with 1190 views | Steve_M |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 09:29 - Mar 1 by DJR |
I am no fan of Hancock, but I think the best way to get to the bottom of issues such as this is to have an independent inquiry. But whether we have one is perhaps a moot point, given the outcome of past government inquiries. [Post edited 1 Mar 2023 9:29]
|
Well quite, Isabelle Oakshott is hardly a trustworthy journalist either and the Telegraph's extreme anti-lockdown agenda should make one very sceptical that they have published the entirety of Hancock's messages in context.
Frankly, I believe none of them here. |  |
| |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 10:04 - Mar 1 with 1177 views | Steve_M |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 10:01 - Mar 1 by Steve_M |
Well quite, Isabelle Oakshott is hardly a trustworthy journalist either and the Telegraph's extreme anti-lockdown agenda should make one very sceptical that they have published the entirety of Hancock's messages in context.
Frankly, I believe none of them here. |
This is also true on Hancock's political judgement:
| |
| |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 10:13 - Mar 1 with 1155 views | Swansea_Blue |
If there’s any suggestion that this could be the case, surely someone will try an action through the courts? I’m not sure what the options would be, but if a criminal action isn’t possible you’d think at least one of the families affected would try for damages. Maybe even a class action by the group that represents the bereaved families? It’d be nice to see these messages be scrutinised in court in full one way or the other. |  |
| |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 10:23 - Mar 1 with 1135 views | bluelagos |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 09:29 - Mar 1 by DJR |
I am no fan of Hancock, but I think the best way to get to the bottom of issues such as this is to have an independent inquiry. But whether we have one is perhaps a moot point, given the outcome of past government inquiries. [Post edited 1 Mar 2023 9:29]
|
Two problems I see.
The tardyness of our inquiry hearings - will take a charity bet with anyone our one doesn't conclude and report within 5 years.
Secong, under existing law, participants can mislead/lie at public inquiries with impunity, as demonstrated in the collapse of the trials of the laywer and police who doctored evidence for the Taylor inquiry. A judge ruled that you can only "pervert the course of justice" at criminal settings.
Despite being a conservative party manifesto committment they have failed to introduce the legislation to change this.
Why the govt. would seek to protect those who lie at public inquiries is unclear and it could simply be a coincidence that the proposed law would compell ex ministers to be truthful at the CV inquiry, yet remains to be introduced as promised. |  |
| |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 10:39 - Mar 1 with 1106 views | ElderGrizzly |
To be fair, I wouldn't trust Oakeshott either.
She has a TV show where she sits next to her partner and shouts down anyone who doesn't agree with her view and lies about other easily provable facts.
Plus this is lovely
[Post edited 1 Mar 2023 10:41]
|  | | |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 10:41 - Mar 1 with 1088 views | DJR |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 10:23 - Mar 1 by bluelagos |
Two problems I see.
The tardyness of our inquiry hearings - will take a charity bet with anyone our one doesn't conclude and report within 5 years.
Secong, under existing law, participants can mislead/lie at public inquiries with impunity, as demonstrated in the collapse of the trials of the laywer and police who doctored evidence for the Taylor inquiry. A judge ruled that you can only "pervert the course of justice" at criminal settings.
Despite being a conservative party manifesto committment they have failed to introduce the legislation to change this.
Why the govt. would seek to protect those who lie at public inquiries is unclear and it could simply be a coincidence that the proposed law would compell ex ministers to be truthful at the CV inquiry, yet remains to be introduced as promised. |
Yep, the Chilcott report into the Iraq War didn't report until 2016.
It's always been the case that an inquiry is a way of kicking things into the long grass, and if you can limit its remit (the Butler report into weapons of mass destruction did not deal with the role of politicians) and ensure a friendly establishment figure in charge (the Butler report also), so much the better. [Post edited 1 Mar 2023 10:42]
| | | |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 11:54 - Mar 1 with 1003 views | EdwardStone |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 10:23 - Mar 1 by bluelagos |
Two problems I see.
The tardyness of our inquiry hearings - will take a charity bet with anyone our one doesn't conclude and report within 5 years.
Secong, under existing law, participants can mislead/lie at public inquiries with impunity, as demonstrated in the collapse of the trials of the laywer and police who doctored evidence for the Taylor inquiry. A judge ruled that you can only "pervert the course of justice" at criminal settings.
Despite being a conservative party manifesto committment they have failed to introduce the legislation to change this.
Why the govt. would seek to protect those who lie at public inquiries is unclear and it could simply be a coincidence that the proposed law would compell ex ministers to be truthful at the CV inquiry, yet remains to be introduced as promised. |
Justice delayed is Justice denied.
It is a predictable and cynical technique to stifle critics while allowing the guilty to go unpunished |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| I know who I believe Hancock on 12:22 - Mar 1 with 946 views | DanTheMan |
There are other tidbits coming out now, one of which is that it seems that JRM got priority testing for his son. Literally had a test couriered to him and then to the lab. This was during a time when there was a testing backlog. |  |
| |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 12:46 - Mar 1 with 891 views | Churchman |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 09:29 - Mar 1 by DJR |
I am no fan of Hancock, but I think the best way to get to the bottom of issues such as this is to have an independent inquiry. But whether we have one is perhaps a moot point, given the outcome of past government inquiries. [Post edited 1 Mar 2023 9:29]
|
Agreed. It’s the only way. The trouble is, define independent.
Do I believe Hancock? Nope. If he said it was daylight I’d look out of the window to check. But to be fair and to learn anything for the future there does need to be an enquiry on all aspects of the handling of Covid in my view. |  | | |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 12:54 - Mar 1 with 867 views | chicoazul |
So….who do you believe? Isabella Oakeshott? |  |
| |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 16:41 - Mar 1 with 718 views | HARRY10 |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 09:29 - Mar 1 by DJR |
I am no fan of Hancock, but I think the best way to get to the bottom of issues such as this is to have an independent inquiry. But whether we have one is perhaps a moot point, given the outcome of past government inquiries. [Post edited 1 Mar 2023 9:29]
|
There already is one (April 2022). It sits most Wednesdays, but is not yet at the stage of questioning witnesses - it should begin that soon.
Those questioned will be under oath, which raises the question of perjury. One of the reasons the bloater will take legal counsel to hearings and consult them throughout the session, though he must answer himself.
If the committee rules against him, any sanction recommended by it will then be subject to a vote in the house. If the evidence is quite damning as has been suggested then it will be a brave, if not foolhardy Tory Parliamentary party that would vote down any sanction - given that voters will have seen and heard all evidence
A ten day, or more, ban from the house would see a likely recall and a by election. Given how badly he fared in three previous by-elections he will be out.
The covid enquiry is underway. The question there will be how many of the deaths were down to Johnson's intent or his usual incompetence. No coincidence either that as Module 2 Preliminary Hearing began this morning the revelations about Hancock surfaced.
Nuremberg 1946 springs to mind |  | | |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 17:11 - Mar 1 with 701 views | bluelagos |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 16:41 - Mar 1 by HARRY10 |
There already is one (April 2022). It sits most Wednesdays, but is not yet at the stage of questioning witnesses - it should begin that soon.
Those questioned will be under oath, which raises the question of perjury. One of the reasons the bloater will take legal counsel to hearings and consult them throughout the session, though he must answer himself.
If the committee rules against him, any sanction recommended by it will then be subject to a vote in the house. If the evidence is quite damning as has been suggested then it will be a brave, if not foolhardy Tory Parliamentary party that would vote down any sanction - given that voters will have seen and heard all evidence
A ten day, or more, ban from the house would see a likely recall and a by election. Given how badly he fared in three previous by-elections he will be out.
The covid enquiry is underway. The question there will be how many of the deaths were down to Johnson's intent or his usual incompetence. No coincidence either that as Module 2 Preliminary Hearing began this morning the revelations about Hancock surfaced.
Nuremberg 1946 springs to mind |
"Those questioned will be under oath, which raises the question of perjury. "
You would hope so, but Perjury only relates to judicial proceedings - which excludes public inquiries at present. | |
| |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 17:46 - Mar 1 with 668 views | DJR |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 17:11 - Mar 1 by bluelagos |
"Those questioned will be under oath, which raises the question of perjury. "
You would hope so, but Perjury only relates to judicial proceedings - which excludes public inquiries at present. |
And how independent will it be, what is its remit, will it examine all the evidence, and when will it report? | | | |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 18:48 - Mar 1 with 624 views | HARRY10 |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 17:46 - Mar 1 by DJR |
And how independent will it be, what is its remit, will it examine all the evidence, and when will it report? |
Given that the questioning of witnesses part will be televised live, it will be very independent. That final part is due to begin within the next few weeks and last around 2 months at most.
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/289/committee-of-privileges/news/1728 my understanding is as,
"While administering the oath may appear to be just a theatrical flourish for the cameras, it can have very serious consequences. The giving of false evidence under oath is not only punishable as a contempt of parliament, but also as an offence under the Perjury Act 1911. It is a serious crime, punishable by up to seven years imprisonment.[
Anyone with the odd minute (or ten) might wish to read
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/evidence-under-oath-perjury-and-parliamenta
Where particular attention should be paid to - 'the Perjury Act 1911, which now punishes false evidence under oath before committees of either House'
The problem for the bloater is he will not know what others have already said, or given as written evidence (a statement of truth).
Let's hope the bloater has not partaken of any livener. which might cause him to start ranting incoherently as at so many PMQs, [Post edited 1 Mar 2023 18:52]
| | | |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 18:54 - Mar 1 with 606 views | HARRY10 |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 17:11 - Mar 1 by bluelagos |
"Those questioned will be under oath, which raises the question of perjury. "
You would hope so, but Perjury only relates to judicial proceedings - which excludes public inquiries at present. |
This is not a public enquiry, it is a Parliamentary select committee enquiry
Not the same | | | |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 19:47 - Mar 1 with 548 views | DJR |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 18:48 - Mar 1 by HARRY10 |
Given that the questioning of witnesses part will be televised live, it will be very independent. That final part is due to begin within the next few weeks and last around 2 months at most.
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/289/committee-of-privileges/news/1728 my understanding is as,
"While administering the oath may appear to be just a theatrical flourish for the cameras, it can have very serious consequences. The giving of false evidence under oath is not only punishable as a contempt of parliament, but also as an offence under the Perjury Act 1911. It is a serious crime, punishable by up to seven years imprisonment.[
Anyone with the odd minute (or ten) might wish to read
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/evidence-under-oath-perjury-and-parliamenta
Where particular attention should be paid to - 'the Perjury Act 1911, which now punishes false evidence under oath before committees of either House'
The problem for the bloater is he will not know what others have already said, or given as written evidence (a statement of truth).
Let's hope the bloater has not partaken of any livener. which might cause him to start ranting incoherently as at so many PMQs, [Post edited 1 Mar 2023 18:52]
|
Sorry, I thought we were talking about the UK Covid Inquiry which is likely to take much longer, not the Parliamentary select committee inquiry.
The terms of reference for the former are these.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-covid-19-inquiry-terms-of-referenc | | | |
| I know who I believe Hancock on 20:09 - Mar 1 with 517 views | HARRY10 |
Cross wires
I think the select committee enquiry will end the bloaters occasional appearances in Parliament.
Revelations from the covid enquiry will similarly be damning for others, as we now have Hancocks seeming indifference to care home deaths - compounded by Rees-Moggs abuse of the testing system to benefit Stick-Insect II. Odd thing that. Sticky bleats about his supposed catholicism yet does not trust faith or the god thing to protect him and his.
As with Johnson's ruffling his hair and pulling out his shirt antics, I suspect that catholicism is merely a ploy by Sticky to give himself what is referred to as a USP.
Perhaps Dorries is just pretending to be dim  | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
