Rotten to the Core | Vital Football

Rotten to the Core

daleks.at.the.monaco

Vital 1st Team Regular
What do we want?
DOUBLE STANDARDS
When do we want them?
NOW

Tory MPs revolting over their Paterson reverse ferret
 
Last edited:
It stinks.

Most of the actions of most of this government stinks.

We're now oblivious to it.

How anyone, after listening to the (brilliant) speech of Chris Bryant (the Chair of the committee) can in good faith vote to change the rules and in the process, stay the committee's finding against Owen Patterson is beyond belief. Every single "justification" put forward by Leadsom and Rees-Mogg were answered, one by one. Bryant basically appealed to the House to have some dignity and integrity. Unfortunately, this wasn't the case.

Oh, also, apparently, the "whipping" of members on House business (which this was), rather than Government business is also totally out of order. Nope, I'm not surprised either.

Quite sad.
 
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.
 
It won't tighten the process. It won't make it "independent". It will eventually clear Paterson. Otherwise, why link the issues?

Paterson committed corruption, and to link his case to any upheaval of process and rules is a complete and utter disgrace.

The fact they were whipped is also a disgrace. In no way was this a party based issue.

Seemingly, there is no end to their "one rule for us, and another for you plebs" attitude.

It's frankly appalling.
 
If they do it right it will make the process more professional and thorough.

Not excusing OP as I think he’s guilty and should face the consequences. However I can also recognise that the investigation was not timely, nor thorough and thus flawed - and the system it sits in is not fit for purpose to ensure properly scrutiny and fairness for the offender.

Politics is a murky business and as I said this has been an unedifying spectacle. Personally I’d have ensured the two issues - OP sentence and the system weren’t linked - though clearly they are to a degree - as it doesn’t look good. However to listen some of the hand wringers claiming democracy is being undermined I have absolutely no time for for given many were cheerleaders in trying to subvert a democratic referendum result.
 
If they do it right it will make the process more professional and thorough.

Not excusing OP as I think he’s guilty and should face the consequences. However I can also recognise that the investigation was not timely, nor thorough and thus flawed - and the system it sits in is not fit for purpose to ensure properly scrutiny and fairness for the offender.

Politics is a murky business and as I said this has been an unedifying spectacle. Personally I’d have ensured the two issues - OP sentence and the system weren’t linked - though clearly they are to a degree - as it doesn’t look good. However to listen some of the hand wringers claiming democracy is being undermined I have absolutely no time for for given many were cheerleaders in trying to subvert a democratic referendum result.


It wasn't timely due to Paterson requesting delays.
Who on earth says it wasn't thorough?

It's just very sad ..... especially so after all the other seedy activities of this government/cabinet.
 
It wasn't timely due to Paterson requesting delays.
Who on earth says it wasn't thorough?

It's just very sad ..... especially so after all the other seedy activities of this government/cabinet.

Well if she couldn’t be arsed interviewing 17 witnesses as it would take too long I’d suggest it wasn’t thorough.
 
Well if she couldn’t be arsed interviewing 17 witnesses as it would take too long I’d suggest it wasn’t thorough.
She had their statements. Let's not forget too, this isn't just "her". This is also a committee of MPs, including Tories, who all say that the process was fair and thorough. They've been shit on too.
 
She had their statements. Let's not forget too, this isn't just "her". This is also a committee of MPs, including Tories, who all say that the process was fair and thorough. They've been shit on too.

Well we can start with the lack of suitable qualifications of Stone for a start and the lack of appeal procedure. For what it’s worth I don’t think it was worth expending so much political capital on him. He appears bang to rights. He was trousering 9 grand a month to effectively lobby on behalf of these companies. Regardless of his motives for raising the issues he must surely have known there was a conflict of interest and I have little sympathy as he put himself in the situation and knew what he was getting into. Whether the length of his suspension was justified I couldn’t say. However I can see that there are major flaws in the system and improving it seems highly appropriate, though it should not have been done in this manner as it effectively saves his backside, for now, and that’s all the public will take away from it.
 
Let's be honest mate, given that MPs would have been actively involved in either appointing or at least approving her in position, whinging about her suitability at a later point is lame in the extreme.

The last update to the procedure - led by Leadsom herself - omitted to include an appeals procedure. Why didn't they sort it back then?

As for Paterson, the pillock is telling folk he'd do the same things again. He doesn't believe he's done anything wrong. He believes he's above the bloody law. Rees-Mogg tried tentatively to justify his actions yesterday, and immediately got hammered down.

Only the other week, the government were saying that it wouldn't be right to amend rules retrospectively (re the MP accused of sexual bullying I think), yet now, that's exactly what they're doing. If they'd have voted on Paterson's case, approved the sentence, and then proposed the new system, then yes, there'd have been some integrity to that maybe ....... but they didn't. They want to change the rules, and then re-charge Paterson, in complete contradiction to what they previously said was possible/justified.

I think we're both agreed on that.
 
So, there we have it. The following day ........ a backtracking.

Don't know whether to laugh or cry.
 
Apparently it was Bercow that appointed Stone…. and they don’t feel she is particularly impartial. As I said yesterday she lacks any qualifications for the role and it would seem more suited to a retired judge, barrister, senior detective.

I’m not defending Patterson, I’ve no sympathy for him. I read an article he wrote for the Telegraph this morning and it was pretty pathetic. Even those commentating had little sympathy for him. Whether he was acting in the public interest or not, he was still trousering all that cash and it helped those companies competitors. He put himself in the situation and compromised himself.

As for the reassessment- it’s entirely right that the link be broken between the two issues and it should have happened from the outset as I said yesterday. A clear misjudgment.
 
As for the reassessment- it’s entirely right that the link be broken between the two issues and it should have happened from the outset as I said yesterday. A clear misjudgment.

Of course. Instead, we're left with yet another U-turn fiasco.

It was nice seeing Rees-Mogg squirm though.
 
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.

What have you got against Social Workers?
What have you got against people improving their job?
What have you got against self improvement?
We should celebrate the fact that a commoner can achieve such a responsible position within the administration of our government.
 
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 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.

Other stories say that:
Delays were at Paterson's request and/or covid lockdowns (remember them)
Refused to engage, I understand there were written communications (which is the norm) plus Covid
17 witnesses, I read that their statements were considered by committee members
His wife, a tragic situation. Neither you nor I can speculate as to the reason
 
What have you got against Social Workers?
What have you got against people improving their job?
What have you got against self improvement?
We should celebrate the fact that a commoner can achieve such a responsible position within the administration of our government.

None of which has anything to do with being qualified to do a role.
 
Other stories say that:
Delays were at Paterson's request and/or covid lockdowns (remember them)
Refused to engage, I understand there were written communications (which is the norm) plus Covid
17 witnesses, I read that their statements were considered by committee members
His wife, a tragic situation. Neither you nor I can speculate as to the reason

So conjecture. Having an unqualified person undertake a variety of roles raises questions as to competence such as refusal to interview witnesses. Lack of appeal procedure is also odd. Clearly the system isn’t as good as it should be and it has raised doubts as to the validity of the outcome, though the evidence itself seems pretty definitive in this case. It seems you are still conflating the two issues.
 
And now, he's bloody resigned !!!

Aye - and can now say he’s the victim in all this. I suppose he’ll think it will protect his reputation and integrity as the suspension was not ratified and he’s now done an ‘honourable’ thing. Should have done it when it was announced - and questioned the effectiveness of the process and enacted change that way.
 
Aye - and can now say he’s the victim in all this. I suppose he’ll think it will protect his reputation and integrity as the suspension was not ratified and he’s now done an ‘honourable’ thing. Should have done it when it was announced - and questioned the effectiveness of the process and enacted change that way.

Those found guilty protest their innocence all the time. Doesn't mean they are though.

He took money from a company. That company benefitted from his actions. All this bollocks about "in the public interest" is exactly that ...... bollocks.

Now, it's up to Labour and Lib Dems to work together, stand a single candidate, and win the seat. Without PR, it's the only way they're going to make an impact any time soon .......and this could act as a test case.