Poor Nadine !

Grantanow I think wanting something to happen doesn’t mean it will. BJ can do much more damage to Parliament outside the boxing ring. He will be an avenging harpy.

I agree the Committee has done well. Sunak should vote for their report but I fear he may find some excuse not to be present when the report is debated. Johnson's allies will dwindle over time once they see he's not likely to return to the Commons.

I for one am impressed by the Committee's findings. The pundits seem to think that about 30 Tory MPs will vote against the report and that others won't turn to vote.

Johnson is very much like Trump in that both are lacking a certain degree of introspection and self analysis. The sooner he leaves British politics behind, the better.

ronib

Siope Now I am curious - what possible explanation is there for the refusal?

I think Nadine should have asked what possible explanation was there for awarding her the honour in the first place?!! By all accounts she doesn't appear to have served her constituents well (trolling off to appear in I'm a Celebrity for a few weeks), so what outstanding service did she provide as a Member of Parliament to warrant the honour?

Dorries is coming across as a woman scorned! Weird!

I think by demanding a unpublishable answer she has found a way to row back from her tantrum like decision to resign. We shall never know why the H of L committee rejected her but it was a good call. It's a pity they didn't reject a few more on the Buffoon's list. Now that he has been shown up by the Privileges Committee his entire list should be binned.

I thought she had resigned? Dead but won’t lie down.

Siope

She has asked for personal data (data has a very wide meaning) under GDPR (see her tweets) for relating to a decision about her.

The Act specifically excludes matters relating to honours, so her request cannot legally be complied with.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/schedule/2/enacted

She must know this, it’s an action designed to embarrass the PM.

She has asked for personal data (data has a very wide meaning) under GDPR (see her tweets) for relating to a decision about her.

The Act specifically excludes matters relating to honours, so her request cannot legally be complied with.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/schedule/2/enacted

Siope Now I am curious - what possible explanation is there for the refusal?

ronib

Siope no matters relating to honours are not exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
Slightly more nuanced than that.
When the Cabinet Office receives questions about the honours system, it considers whether it holds the information requested. If it does, applies a public interest test (under section 37(1)(b) of the Act) to decide whether or not to release information. It will also consider if the information requested includes personal data or has been provided in confidence.
www.gov.uk

You’re right.

She is unlikely to succeed because under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to your own data doesn’t apply to data processed for the honours system.

So a simple request for her own data will be rejected. After that, she can make an FOI request for it and the public interest test will kick in. She’ll find it hard to meet that, I suspect.

Granny Somerset If ND hasn’t been given the facts of the case by the Cabinet Office, of course it is going to run and run. Wouldn’t you like to know why you had been denied an honour? Why would the Cabinet Office prevent ND from knowing?

ND is demonstrating the same sense of entitlement learned from her beloved leader and with the same inability to understand the facts of the case. This distraction will run and run because she and BJ would rather undermine the government than contribute to solving any of the numerous problems the country faces.

Siope no matters relating to honours are not exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
Slightly more nuanced than that.
When the Cabinet Office receives questions about the honours system, it considers whether it holds the information requested. If it does, applies a public interest test (under section 37(1)(b) of the Act) to decide whether or not to release information. It will also consider if the information requested includes personal data or has been provided in confidence.
www.gov.uk

She can’t see the messages (or other information) because matters relating to honours are exempt from Freedom of Information regulations.

growstuff

It would appear Dorries refuses to resign until she's seen the WhatsApp and other messages relating to her blocking from a peerage.

Well, if she cared about her constituents she'd just get on with the job she was elected to do.

It would appear Dorries refuses to resign until she's seen the WhatsApp and other messages relating to her blocking from a peerage.

That they're all as bad as each other is exactly the kind of chaos the Johnson circus wants people to believe. Real issues and real people have never mattered to him.

ronib

Casdon I don’t believe any of them. Why should I? There’s no credibility in the whole barmy system.

There are degrees of culpability. Johnson will not be off the hook as a result of implication that others were just as guilty as he is, when they clearly weren’t.
Throwing your hands in the air and saying they are all as bad as each other doesn’t wash because it’s not true, there are many decent and honourable MPs of all parties.

And reiterating: Johnson was s being censured for misleading Parliament, not for breaking lockdown. If he thinks Jenkins broke the law, Johnson can make a report to the police. .

Casdon I don’t believe any of them. Why should I? There’s no credibility in the whole barmy system.

ronib

Casdon of course BJ is the master of his craft but it does put the report in a different light. Seems very unprofessional not to have checked on the checkers if only to have avoided a never ending game of one upmanship. Again bringing parliament into disrepute.

So you believe the word of a proven liar over that of an MP from his own party who has explained in detail the measures that were taken for one event to ensure it was Covid compliant - which are no doubt verifiable. Seriously?

Casdon of course BJ is the master of his craft but it does put the report in a different light. Seems very unprofessional not to have checked on the checkers if only to have avoided a never ending game of one upmanship. Again bringing parliament into disrepute.

ronib

I am more confused than ever. It now seems that Bernard Jenkin also broke the rules over Covid and social gatherings. BJ has written to Harriet Harman to ask if she had checked on the people sitting in judgment. The letter is on the Guido Fawkes website. Crazy way to conduct an enquiry?

I don’t think it does seem that ronib. It’s more a case of it seems that Boris Johnson is desperately trying to get off the hook and is lashing out with what appears to be little foundation against a member of his own party who was on the panel. The Guardian certainly puts a different spin on it to yours.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/14/boris-johnson-calls-for-tory-mp-on-privileges-committee-to-resign

I do not like the way a democratically elected leader has been drummed out of parliament.

He was not drummed out. He resigned.

I do not think that those who sat in judgement on him were unbiased.

The committee has a majority of Tory MPs. Plus all they have done is made a recommendation. That would then go for a vote in the Commins where Johnson’s own party has a 60+ majority. Are they all biased?

I do not like the fact that there is no appeal against their findings.

But there is the opportunity to present submissions to be considered before the Committee’s recommendations are finalised. Johnson was given two weeks to do so, instead of which he resigned, and publicly attacked the probity of the Committee. He then entered a submission exactly 3 minutes before the deadline.

Had he not resigned, he would have had the opportunity to present his views to the Commons ahead of a free vote on the recommendations. Had that vote gone against him, he would have had the chance to persuade enough of his constituents not to sign a recall petition, thus keeping him as their MP. Had that failed, he could then have argued his case at a by-election, and if enough voters believed him, he’d have been re-elected.

That’s a fairly robust appeals process.

I think that all this business is a threat to our democracy.

On the contrary, upholding standards in Parliament and MPs at all ranks behaving in a way which ensures the electorate can trust them are underpinnings of democracy, as is holding those who breach our trust accountable.