[Misc] Owen Patterson M.P.

[Leekbrookgull]

I would be very grateful if anyone could list those Tories who vote for O/P.

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

I'm sure I'll read the following in a few days

Conservatives 45 (+4)

Amazing that no one gives a shit and they can do what they want. At what point will people care?

When it affects them directly...

 

[Iggle Piggle]

I would be very grateful if anyone could list those Tories who vote for O/P.

Sort of

[TWEET]1455934220757516296[/TWEET]

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I would be very grateful if anyone could list those Tories who vote for O/P.

It’s easy to find if you search for it, plus those who abstained.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I would be very grateful if anyone could list those Tories who vote for O/P.

Over to you.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rds-reform-and-let-owen-paterson-off-the-hook

 

[KZNSeagull]

My MP has posted this on facebook:

*** Owen Patterson MP - votes today ***
There have been a handful of messages regarding why I didn't vote to suspend Owen Patterson today, but instead voted to allow an appeals process to take place first.
I understand that some people want to turn this into a party political issue, I don't think it is and am glad that 30 or so Labour MPs abstained today.
If, after that appeals process takes place, Mr Patterson is found to have broken the rules, I will vote to suspend him with all the consequences that will have (see below).
I am happy to explain the reasons for my decision:
1.) Mr Patterson has been investigated for 2 years, during which period his wife of 40 years killed herself. It has been suggested by many who knew her, including their children, that this was in part due to the pressure of this long, drawn out investigation. While I have immense sympathy on a personal level for Mr Patterson in this regard, this could be considered irrelevant but I think it is important to understand the personal context too.
2.) I've stood up for many employees, including working with Trades Unions when people have come to me and said that they have been unfairly dismissed from their jobs or have not had fair working conditions. Some have subsequently won at employment tribunal, some not.
In this case it is acknowledged by the Standards Commissioner that she did not interview all of the witnesses who came forward. David Davis MP (who resigned his seat in Parliament to prevent the then Labour Government's plans for 90 days detention without charge or trial in the late 2000s) has written about the case here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../DAVID-DAVIS-Owen-Paterson...
3.) At the moment their is no 'appeals process' for Mr Patterson, despite his circumstances. Today, I voted to create one. That is what the votes today were about. Do you want to create an ability for people to appeals or not? I voted to create one.
4.) If after this appeal, Mr Patterson is found to have breached the rules, I will certainly vote to suspend him.
5.) Any MP suspended for more than 10 days faces a 'Recall Petition' - which means that their constituents can then have a by-election if they choose to. That’s why a 30 day suspension is so serious, is basically means and MP loses their seat not at the decision or the electorate but essentially at the decision of an unelected commissioner without an appeals process.
I want that process to be a review of the decision by a high court judge or similar.
Q & A
Q1.) Why didn't you vote to suspend Mr Patterson?
A1.) See above. But in truth, I didn't vote not to suspend Mr Patterson either. I voted for him to be able to appeal. If that appeal comes back to suspend him, them I'll vote to suspend him.
Q2.) Other MPs in your party and in other parties took a different view, why did you vote to allow an appeals process?
A2.) Reasonable people are allowed have different views on this without making them evil/corrupt/malevolent, etc and I respect people coming to a different conclusion. Is suspect some didn't fancy having to write an explainer on their Facebook page of why they did what they did. In fact 30 Labour MPs abstained from voting too - so I don't view this as party political, more in the interests of natural justice.
I hope this is clear. I expect some people will agree with my decision, many won't, which is fair enough. But I thought you as my constituents deserve to know my thoughts.
Best wishes,
Richard Holden MP

 

[Thunder Bolt]

A quote

I was not aware until today that the

Committee for standards in public Life

Contained lay people

That's members of the public

So a version of jury duty

The @Conservatives voted to remove the general public from the committee

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Susie Dent knows.

Word of the day is ‘malversation’ (16th century): the corrupt administration of power

 

[nicko31]

What we've seen today is a clear attempt to undermine the standards system, to kill the system of standards in public life. Nothing less.

This vote leave government are doing everything they can to be unaccountable to no one

 

[Machiavelli]

Is my understanding correct? That rather than accept the findings of an impartial parliamentary investigation into this individual’s behaviour, he’s persuaded his colleagues to instead vote for a complete reworking of the rules around MPs behaviour, conveniently letting himself off the hook, and avoiding the risk of a by-election?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, it isn't. The poor little lamb has been denied natural justice*.


*That's the consistent line the Tory MPs have been dolling out, and I'm sure some helpful contributors on NSC have already carefully explained what on earth natural justice is.

 

[vegster]

And people aren’t wearing enough hats.

There will be time for hats later.

 

[Machiavelli]

Decent tories... is that an oxymoron?

Nope, there's a fair few decent Tories on this board. Mind you, there's a fair few that really aren't.

 

[sparkie]

Decent tories... is that an oxymoron?

I'm a Tory in principle. I don't know if I am decent or not but I just detest Billy Bunter and the BlueKippers who have taken over the party.

 

[Machiavelli]

1. Most voters don't like admitting or being told that they are / were wrong.

2. Most voters don't keep up to date with current affairs and so will be ignorant of this Owen Paterson story, effluent in our water supply, the fact that Boris fell asleep unmasked next to 95 year-old Sir David Attenborough etc.

3. The political Left are disunited and fragmented.

4. There is a right-wing media machine that deliberately distorts the facts.

So for things to change people need to be more humble, more questioning, stop buying into tabloid rubbish, while Labour / Lib Dem / Green need to get their Progressive Alliance shit together.

It is plain we need to change so many things about the way we live and yet our governing party seems intent on living in the past. The clue is in the name - Conservative.

Great post

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

My MP has posted this on facebook:

*** Owen Patterson MP - votes today ***
There have been a handful of messages regarding why I didn't vote to suspend Owen Patterson today, but instead voted to allow an appeals process to take place first.
I understand that some people want to turn this into a party political issue, I don't think it is and am glad that 30 or so Labour MPs abstained today.
If, after that appeals process takes place, Mr Patterson is found to have broken the rules, I will vote to suspend him with all the consequences that will have (see below).
I am happy to explain the reasons for my decision:
1.) Mr Patterson has been investigated for 2 years, during which period his wife of 40 years killed herself. It has been suggested by many who knew her, including their children, that this was in part due to the pressure of this long, drawn out investigation. While I have immense sympathy on a personal level for Mr Patterson in this regard, this could be considered irrelevant but I think it is important to understand the personal context too.
2.) I've stood up for many employees, including working with Trades Unions when people have come to me and said that they have been unfairly dismissed from their jobs or have not had fair working conditions. Some have subsequently won at employment tribunal, some not.
In this case it is acknowledged by the Standards Commissioner that she did not interview all of the witnesses who came forward. David Davis MP (who resigned his seat in Parliament to prevent the then Labour Government's plans for 90 days detention without charge or trial in the late 2000s) has written about the case here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../DAVID-DAVIS-Owen-Paterson...
3.) At the moment their is no 'appeals process' for Mr Patterson, despite his circumstances. Today, I voted to create one. That is what the votes today were about. Do you want to create an ability for people to appeals or not? I voted to create one.
4.) If after this appeal, Mr Patterson is found to have breached the rules, I will certainly vote to suspend him.
5.) Any MP suspended for more than 10 days faces a 'Recall Petition' - which means that their constituents can then have a by-election if they choose to. That’s why a 30 day suspension is so serious, is basically means and MP loses their seat not at the decision or the electorate but essentially at the decision of an unelected commissioner without an appeals process.
I want that process to be a review of the decision by a high court judge or similar.
Q & A
Q1.) Why didn't you vote to suspend Mr Patterson?
A1.) See above. But in truth, I didn't vote not to suspend Mr Patterson either. I voted for him to be able to appeal. If that appeal comes back to suspend him, them I'll vote to suspend him.
Q2.) Other MPs in your party and in other parties took a different view, why did you vote to allow an appeals process?
A2.) Reasonable people are allowed have different views on this without making them evil/corrupt/malevolent, etc and I respect people coming to a different conclusion. Is suspect some didn't fancy having to write an explainer on their Facebook page of why they did what they did. In fact 30 Labour MPs abstained from voting too - so I don't view this as party political, more in the interests of natural justice.
I hope this is clear. I expect some people will agree with my decision, many won't, which is fair enough. But I thought you as my constituents deserve to know my thoughts.
Best wishes,
Richard Holden MP

There are a million things you could go back to your MP with. The main one being that "30" MP's didn't abstain they were paired. Eg Starmer was isolating so couldn't vote so an agreement was made with a tory for them not to vote.

 

[lawros left foot]

My MP has posted this on facebook:

*** Owen Patterson MP - votes today ***
There have been a handful of messages regarding why I didn't vote to suspend Owen Patterson today, but instead voted to allow an appeals process to take place first.
I understand that some people want to turn this into a party political issue, I don't think it is and am glad that 30 or so Labour MPs abstained today.
If, after that appeals process takes place, Mr Patterson is found to have broken the rules, I will vote to suspend him with all the consequences that will have (see below).
I am happy to explain the reasons for my decision:
1.) Mr Patterson has been investigated for 2 years, during which period his wife of 40 years killed herself. It has been suggested by many who knew her, including their children, that this was in part due to the pressure of this long, drawn out investigation. While I have immense sympathy on a personal level for Mr Patterson in this regard, this could be considered irrelevant but I think it is important to understand the personal context too.
2.) I've stood up for many employees, including working with Trades Unions when people have come to me and said that they have been unfairly dismissed from their jobs or have not had fair working conditions. Some have subsequently won at employment tribunal, some not.
In this case it is acknowledged by the Standards Commissioner that she did not interview all of the witnesses who came forward. David Davis MP (who resigned his seat in Parliament to prevent the then Labour Government's plans for 90 days detention without charge or trial in the late 2000s) has written about the case here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../DAVID-DAVIS-Owen-Paterson...
3.) At the moment their is no 'appeals process' for Mr Patterson, despite his circumstances. Today, I voted to create one. That is what the votes today were about. Do you want to create an ability for people to appeals or not? I voted to create one.
4.) If after this appeal, Mr Patterson is found to have breached the rules, I will certainly vote to suspend him.
5.) Any MP suspended for more than 10 days faces a 'Recall Petition' - which means that their constituents can then have a by-election if they choose to. That’s why a 30 day suspension is so serious, is basically means and MP loses their seat not at the decision or the electorate but essentially at the decision of an unelected commissioner without an appeals process.
I want that process to be a review of the decision by a high court judge or similar.
Q & A
Q1.) Why didn't you vote to suspend Mr Patterson?
A1.) See above. But in truth, I didn't vote not to suspend Mr Patterson either. I voted for him to be able to appeal. If that appeal comes back to suspend him, them I'll vote to suspend him.
Q2.) Other MPs in your party and in other parties took a different view, why did you vote to allow an appeals process?
A2.) Reasonable people are allowed have different views on this without making them evil/corrupt/malevolent, etc and I respect people coming to a different conclusion. Is suspect some didn't fancy having to write an explainer on their Facebook page of why they did what they did. In fact 30 Labour MPs abstained from voting too - so I don't view this as party political, more in the interests of natural justice.
I hope this is clear. I expect some people will agree with my decision, many won't, which is fair enough. But I thought you as my constituents deserve to know my thoughts.
Best wishes,
Richard Holden MP

Point 1,

Patterson’s wife did commit suicide, but, at her inquest he said he knew of no reason for her to take her own life.
He did say a couple of months ago, that she had had covid and her health deteriorated after it.

He made no mention of the investigation impacting on her mental health until last week.

She killed herself on his birthday.

 

[Machiavelli]

A quote

I was not aware until today that the

Committee for standards in public Life

Contained lay people

That's members of the public

So a version of jury duty

The @Conservatives voted to remove the general public from the committee

Cast your mind back two years ago, and you might recall that a certain politician adopted a new slogan to right a wrong: "the people against parliament"

 

[HOFNSKIN]

A cross-party committee found that a Tory MP had committed "egregious" breaches of the rules by lobbying for companies that had paid him £100,000s.

So what do the Tories do?

They just voted to scrap the rules and let their mate off the hook. The Tories are corrupt to the core.

 

[The Clamp]

A cross-party committee found that a Tory MP had committed "egregious" breaches of the rules by lobbying for companies that had paid him £100,000s.

So what do the Tories do?

They just voted to scrap the rules and let their mate off the hook. The Tories are corrupt to the core.

In a nutshell.

 

[clapham_gull]

A cross-party committee found that a Tory MP had committed "egregious" breaches of the rules by lobbying for companies that had paid him £100,000s.

So what do the Tories do?

They just voted to scrap the rules and let their mate off the hook. The Tories are corrupt to the core.

Yep and what the **** are the Government doing getting involved with a free line whip.

If the committee needs reform it's a matter for Parliament, not the Executive and at worse being lead by the PM.

Stinks to high heaven.