Contempt of Parliament

Siope

Could you provide a clip of that please, Freya? I am not sure when he did this? It wasn’t, of course, in the debate on the Committee’s recommendations, when his only intervention was this

news.sky.com/video/i-think-thats-a-mic-drop-jacob-rees-mogg-is-heard-during-debate-on-boris-johnson-partygate-report-12905589

Was on you tube, will try and find it.

ronib

It’s very important for Mps to be allowed to respectfully comment on matters which are important to them. I don’t expect every mp to agree with every committee and it’s vital for divergent voices to be heard.
I don’t think that the Privileges Committee was in any way prevented from doing its work by Rees Mogg, Cruddas and Dorries. It continues to do its work and I am expecting some censure of mps in yet another report.

The Privileges Commitee Special Report refers to Erskin May which defines a contempt in this way:

Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such house in the discharge of their duty or which has a tendency directly or indirectly to produce such results maybe treated as a contemt even though there is no precedent of the offense. It is there for impossible to list every act which might be considered to amount to a contemt as parliamentary privilege is a living concept.

Freya5

eazybee

I cannot imagine Jacob Rees-Mogg ever committing an undisciplined use of language.
In my opinion the Privileges Committee are pursuing their privileges to the nth degree, quite unnecessarily, and they are contemptible.

Absolutely. Harmans face when Rees Mogg was talking in Parliament about the committee. He said exactly that, and that we weren't living in a dictatorship where opinions should not be aired. He wanted a free and open discussion. Her face looked like she swallowed sour milk. This is the result, can't take it,but likes to give it out.

Is that when he said that she shouldn’t have chaired the committee and she pointed out that she had spoken to the government about it and it was agreed unanimously that it was fine for her to chair it. This was during the debate: the one where Rees Mogg defended Johnson to the hilt. And then abstained on the vote.

Harriet Harman, the "Mother of the House" hasan impeccible grasp of correct procedure. She checked with the government and was assured that they had confidence in her as Chairman of the Privileges Committee..

She is a highly experienced, well respected and dignified MP, not something we could say about Jacob Rees Mogg

My interpretation was exactly the opposite. After Harman had replied, it was Rees-Mogg who looked as though he'd bathed in sour milk.

Could you provide a clip of that please, Freya? I am not sure when he did this? It wasn’t, of course, in the debate on the Committee’s recommendations, when his only intervention was this

news.sky.com/video/i-think-thats-a-mic-drop-jacob-rees-mogg-is-heard-during-debate-on-boris-johnson-partygate-report-12905589

eazybee

I cannot imagine Jacob Rees-Mogg ever committing an undisciplined use of language.
In my opinion the Privileges Committee are pursuing their privileges to the nth degree, quite unnecessarily, and they are contemptible.

Absolutely. Harmans face when Rees Mogg was talking in Parliament about the committee. He said exactly that, and that we weren't living in a dictatorship where opinions should not be aired. He wanted a free and open discussion. Her face looked like she swallowed sour milk. This is the result, can't take it,but likes to give it out.

HousePlantQueen

eazybee

I cannot imagine Jacob Rees-Mogg ever committing an undisciplined use of language.
In my opinion the Privileges Committee are pursuing their privileges to the nth degree, quite unnecessarily, and they are contemptible.

JRM is a loathsome, sneering man with no regard for democracy, don't be fooled by his faux 'gentleman' appearance. He knew what he was saying, took the risk and should take the consequences. IMO

Didn’t he filibuster one day to stop a bill to protect vulnerable women going through parliament. I’m sure that Jess Phillips referred back to it once.

ronib

Maizie D only future historians will be able to assess this whole debacle.
I note that comments are quoted dated 9th June when the draft report had been written. There’s no way that comments then could be presented as intimidatory or actively preventing the completion of the report.
At the end of the day the House of Commons can produce as many reports and add on reports as it likes - we don’t have to be sucked into yet another psychodrama. We can make our own judgments.

It's quite clear that comments (including the write in campaign) intended to pressure members of the Committee to issue a report acceptable to BoJo's friends were a contempt (of the Commons, not the Committee) and that applies to comments made on or after 9 June while the draft report was being considered for finalising. The privileges of the Commons - which the Committee is there to uphold - are fundamental to free, unfettered and unintimidated discussion by our elected representatives. They have been long fought for and the struggle to maintain them must be sustained. I congratulate the Committee.

The Report is only 14 pages long, if anyone wants to read it:

committees.parliament.uk/publications/40679/documents/198237/default/

eazybee

I cannot imagine Jacob Rees-Mogg ever committing an undisciplined use of language.
In my opinion the Privileges Committee are pursuing their privileges to the nth degree, quite unnecessarily, and they are contemptible.

JRM is a loathsome, sneering man with no regard for democracy, don't be fooled by his faux 'gentleman' appearance. He knew what he was saying, took the risk and should take the consequences. IMO

Casdon great thank you 😊 it proves I can still think.

ronib

Maizie D only future historians will be able to assess this whole debacle.
I note that comments are quoted dated 9th June when the draft report had been written. There’s no way that comments then could be presented as intimidatory or actively preventing the completion of the report.
At the end of the day the House of Commons can produce as many reports and add on reports as it likes - we don’t have to be sucked into yet another psychodrama. We can make our own judgments.

We are making our own judgments ronib and you’re in the minority, not just on this thread but in the media, in parliament, and within the Tory Party. Intimidating people who present a factual, evidence based report at the request of parliament is beyond the pale - and is actually incredible when the nominated MPs from your own party, who form a majority on that committee are bombarded with threats.

MaizieD very few Mps seem to have commented adversely and in fairness they were close friends of BJ. I wouldn’t say that the language used was that bad given the strength of feeling that was present at that time. In fact witch hunt and kangaroo court doesn’t fill me with horror. If Parliament is offended then doubtless it will impose some sanction but it really isn’t doing itself any favours.

That doesn't explain it at all ronib.

We are talking about MPs being in contempt of Parliament because of comments they made about the Privileges Committee.

The security issue is a sperate issue.

Maizie D only future historians will be able to assess this whole debacle.
I note that comments are quoted dated 9th June when the draft report had been written. There’s no way that comments then could be presented as intimidatory or actively preventing the completion of the report.
At the end of the day the House of Commons can produce as many reports and add on reports as it likes - we don’t have to be sucked into yet another psychodrama. We can make our own judgments.

ronib

Siope the real embarrassment lies with the way the House of Commons chooses to conduct itself. Shameful.

And how is 'the way the House of commons chooses to conduct itself' embarrassing?

I have to agree with Siope, I think.

inews.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-penny-mordaunt-pm-privileges-committee-security-concern-2406889

Some members of the Privileges Committee were given extra security as a result of threats. That is no small thing. The comments were not respectful or based on the evidence collected by the committee but simply fed the fury of the type of person who would be motivated to make those threats. How could anyone defend that?

Siope the real embarrassment lies with the way the House of Commons chooses to conduct itself. Shameful.

Criticism of the Privileges Committee's findings and procedures by MPs when they publish a report to the House is allowable because reports are debated by the House. But criticism of any kind and especially harassment, threats, etc., while the Committee is doing the work commissioned by the House is not acceptable and the Committee is right to call it out and name names. Some of the so-called criticism was despicable and the House should consider suspending the offender's. It's nonsense to cast this as a free speech issue. That is simply designed to obfuscate.

… you remind me of the bloke who wrote a nice review about the shrimp gumbo in the middle of a thread about the book, but alas for him not the restaurant, Ulysses.

Faintly amusing, but irrelevant and rather embarrassing for him.

Siope Frankly the Privileges Committee was not prevented in any way from presenting its findings. End of story. A never ending work of fiction …..

ronib

It’s very important for Mps to be allowed to respectfully comment on matters which are important to them. I don’t expect every mp to agree with every committee and it’s vital for divergent voices to be heard.
I don’t think that the Privileges Committee was in any way prevented from doing its work by Rees Mogg, Cruddas and Dorries. It continues to do its work and I am expecting some censure of mps in yet another report.

You haven’t read the report, have you? It deals with precisely this point very early on.

I seem to recall that you are fond of quoting Erskine May, so you may also be interested in the rules about contempt (from Erskine May) that the Privileges Committee use to determine contempt.

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202306/medium-196171-img-1309.jpeg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202306/medium-861545-img-1308.jpeg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202306/medium-661290-img-1310.png

👀

MaizieD Not following your logic today…