I think there’s two (at least) elements to all this.
Firstly is the conduct of OP and secondly is the process/system/investigation. Undoubtedly it’s all an unedifying spectacle.
Seems to me that Patterson is ‘bang to rights’. He raised issues with ministers - and would appear to have been paid to do so - given he declared these payments through the appropriate systems. To claim he was acting in the public interest, despite being paid, doesn’t wash with me and is a major conflict of interest. As such he shouldn’t have done it and should face the consequences imo. Whether his suspension length is just ive no idea.
The issue or uproar doesn’t appear to be about his conduct. The rules around paid advocacy are somewhat open to interpretation, and even the investigator, judge juror and executioner - who is one and the same - conceded that when it’s applied to the relevant code of conduct. Is it right that a former social worker should have responsibility for all these roles? She took over two years to investigate it, which is mind boggling really. She refused to engage with Patterson, she refused to seek legal advice, she refused to interview 17 witnesses he provided as it would take too long. Seems his wife committed suicide because of it all and is why a lot of mp’s have felt compelled to support the motion as the system isn’t fit for purpose and it has indirectly led to a death.
As such from what I understand they are angered by the inadequacy of the system, not necessarily the fact he was found guilty. Seems to me it is flawed, despite I think the right decision being reached, and is not fit for purpose. I suspect it was deliberately set up that way so there isn’t much ‘scrutiny’. Perhaps having former high ranking detectives, barristers, judges etc running these things would ensure a more thorough and fair system. However perhaps MPs need to be careful what they wish for if this was the case. However if it tightens the process and holds them to account more than now then it’s something I suspect we can all get behind. There’s no appeal process either, which is again a bit odd. All in all a tardy spectacle which could and should have been handled much better if the outcome was to reform a system rather than exonerate OP.
As for Bryant, given his involvement in the expenses scandal, he has no credibility when it comes to MPs financial conduct so I pay little attention to what he says.