Jump to content

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people


blandy

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, snowychap said:

 

I hope that someone is considering a S024 debate to take over the business of the House with the idea of legislating to prevent the PM from proroguing without Parliament's agreement.

And set the day to vote on the bill for the first day of Conservative party conference (recess for which, previously voted down).

And add on an amendment requiring the Prime Minister to appear at future Select Committee hearings wearing only his underpants.

May as well have a bit of fun with all this "controlling the order paper" stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

And set the day to vote on the bill for the first day of Conservative party conference (recess for which, previously voted down).

And add on an amendment requiring the Prime Minister to appear at future Select Committee hearings wearing only his underpants.

May as well have a bit of fun with all this "controlling the order paper" stuff.

The pants amendment would be no fun for anyone. ;)

Edited by snowychap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been at the cinema tonight so apologies if this has been done but radio 5 earlier interviewed one of the QC’s from the Scottish challenge who said that someone inside the government was feeding them information on the governments case all the way through the proceedings , reason govt only presented one real argument was their other planned defence would have Involved 2 witnesses perjuring themselves  and they had a last minute change of heart about such actions , presumably because they by this point knew that someone in the government had already passed this information on to the other side 

wonder if we will find out the source of these leaks ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

their other planned defence would have Involved 2 witnesses perjuring themselves  and they had a last minute change of heart about such actions

Erm, if you have to get people to lie to make up a defence, that isn’t a defence, that’s just lying!

To be fair, I’ve not read that there was leaks but that doesn’t surprise me. The government over the last few years seems to have more holes than Swiss cheese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, cyrusr said:

Erm, if you have to get people to lie to make up a defence, that isn’t a defence, that’s just lying!

To be fair, I’ve not read that there was leaks but that doesn’t surprise me. The government over the last few years seems to have more holes than Swiss cheese.

I wasn’t mounting any defence of them just relaying the radio broadcast ... the guy is a QC and quite open about his “mole” I just found it a little surprising he was so open about it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

I wasn’t mounting any defence of them just relaying the radio broadcast ... the guy is a QC and quite open about his “mole” I just found it a little surprising he was so open about it 

Was it Maugham?

I think he was the one who received the list of names and details about the burner phones, private emails, &c. so perhaps it was him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Was it Maugham?

I think he was the one who received the list of names and details about the burner phones, private emails, &c. so perhaps it was him.

Tbh I didn’t catch his name , think they said he was the lead QC in the Scottish case so that might mean it was Aidan O’Neill ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

Been at the cinema tonight so apologies if this has been done but radio 5 earlier interviewed one of the QC’s from the Scottish challenge who said that someone inside the government was feeding them information on the governments case all the way through the proceedings , reason govt only presented one real argument was their other planned defence would have Involved 2 witnesses perjuring themselves  and they had a last minute change of heart about such actions , presumably because they by this point knew that someone in the government had already passed this information on to the other side 

wonder if we will find out the source of these leaks ?  

I can't find anything about this anywhere. Any idea what time it was?

This is today's leak story, which is different from what you describe, but I wonder if this was what they were talking about?

And also, "leaking" the legal advice that informed the prorogation decision and was presumably presented to Cabinet in some form doesn't sound like a "leak" to me, in the sense of it being anything unethical. It's not like prorogation happened in secret or involved classified information.

Edited by KentVillan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I can't find anything about this anywhere. Any idea what time it was?

 

It was the drive show with Tony Lisbee , guess it was around 6:40 

Just found it and @snowychap was correct with Jo Maugham 

tbf he says he had a reliable high placed  source and Lisbee makes the assumption it was a high placed government source ... When Lisbee then refers to it as a government source twice more Maugham doesn’t correct him 

seems the witnesses were given prepared witness statements to sign that weren’t true 

Edited by tonyh29
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

Been at the cinema tonight so apologies if this has been done but radio 5 earlier interviewed one of the QC’s from the Scottish challenge who said that someone inside the government was feeding them information on the governments case all the way through the proceedings , reason govt only presented one real argument was their other planned defence would have Involved 2 witnesses perjuring themselves  and they had a last minute change of heart about such actions , presumably because they by this point knew that someone in the government had already passed this information on to the other side 

wonder if we will find out the source of these leaks ?  

You have a problem with someone leaking information but the fact that the government planned to have 2 witnesses lie in court and had a mysterious "change of heart" because they'd have been found out is fine?

Sounds more like whisteblowing than leaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

You have a problem with someone leaking information but the fact that the government planned to have 2 witnesses lie in court and had a mysterious "change of heart" because they'd have been found out is fine?

Sounds more like whisteblowing than leaking.

That's one heck of a giant leap you've made there   .... Where did i say i had a problem with someone leaking  or the government plan to get them to lie was fine ?  i only asked if we would find out who the leak was

Its on the bbc catchup thing around 2 mins 40 in if you want to listen to it , i'm fairly sure the words "mole" and "leak" were used rather than whistleblower

Maugham  himself specifically said they  weren't being asked to lie when asked , though he was clearly speaking as someone with a legal  mind would  ... tbf it certainly sounded like they were indeed being asked to lie to me :)

 

Edited by tonyh29
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â