Is the parliamentary standards Committee overreaching itself

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • Groping MP Chris Pincher should be suspended for eight weeks - watchdog - BBC News
    The report finds Pincher, then a government whip, groped two men "and that this was unwanted, inappropriate, and upsetting".
    www.bbc.co.uk

    I have no problem in part with parliament having an internal disciplinary system, but when that system goes way beyond what I consider to be reasonable then terms like Kangaroo Court etc start to hold some water.

    We had debate over Boris and that same committees findings and associated reports, members etc. But what I read above it is behaving as if it is a court of law.

    What Pincher is accused of is a criminal offence, offences that should only be dealt with by the police and the courts. But you cannot surely have a system that the prosecutors also act on the jury and then go on to pass sentence. If the police and or courts find him innocent then this committee has no place to investigate, it also cannot be allowed to act as a substitute for the criminal system.

    It is not for me to tell parliament how to police itself, but any process much be seen to be fair, not some political inquisition.

    We have already discussed most points this covers albeit separately, but we have a trend developing and as far as I am aware parliament is not exempt from Industrial Tribunals,the punishment set out is tantamount to a sacking, or as near as MPs can get.

    Did your parents have any children that lived.

  • It is alleged that he grouped two men at the Carlton Club, when I have no idea but if neither of the alleged men have contacted the Police to lodge a formal complaint of sexual assault, there is nothing they can do.

    As that is the case to Parliamentary Committee have the authority to dealt with him as he is a Member of the House, in my opinion he should resign his seat and go.

    I was going to say he " Should Man Up " but thought better of it :)

  • Fred

    You surprise me, he should resign and go!

    For God's sake why?

    Are you saying this committee has now got the power of a court and he can find him guilty without a trial?

    For as long as my backside points south I will never accept that. I don't believe in this balance of probability bullshit for criminal offences. No complaint no case, as for the workplace if there is a complaint against someone but of a criminal nature employers or Parliament in this case should tell them you are alleging a criminal offence and that is beyond our jurisdiction.

    Did your parents have any children that lived.

  • Fred

    You surprise me, he should resign and go!

    For God's sake why?

    Are you saying this committee has now got the power of a court and he can find him guilty without a trial?

    For as long as my backside points south I will never accept that. I don't believe in this balance of probability bullshit for criminal offences. No complaint no case, as for the workplace if there is a complaint against someone but of a criminal nature employers or Parliament in this case should tell them you are alleging a criminal offence and that is beyond our jurisdiction.

    His behaviour if accurate and true is not acceptable full stop, he is lucky the men did not make a formal complaint to the Police if they had his collar would have been felt ages ago.

    The Committee like it or not have investigated the allegation and asked him to explain what did take place or not , at the end of the day Parliament is Sovereign they do have the authority to take him to task as far as I am aware

  • Fred

    Let's say for example that I am a civil servant working in an HMRC office, last weekend I was stopped and arrested for Driving whilst intoxicated, do you think my employer should discipline me ?

    Did your parents have any children that lived.

  • It is alleged that he grouped two men at the Carlton Club, when I have no idea but if neither of the alleged men have contacted the Police to lodge a formal complaint of sexual assault, there is nothing they can do.

    As that is the case to Parliamentary Committee have the authority to dealt with him as he is a Member of the House, in my opinion he should resign his seat and go.

    I was going to say he " Should Man Up " but thought better of it :)

    If neither of the men have apparently gone to the police what with sexual assault being a criminal matter, how did the standards coven...sorry, committee get wind of the alleged groping?

    It all starts to sound a bit politically motivated depending on who reported what to whom.

    Do we even know what the definition of "groped" is in this instance being as there doesn't seem to be any distinction between someone cupping your nuts or putting an arm on your shoulder these days?

    What actual evidence is there? If people can be found guilty by what is basically an upmarket court of public opinion simply on "hearsay" we're on a very slippery slope.

  • Pincher used his Parliamentary position to intimidate others into tolerating his sexual abuse. Of course that committee should be able to sanction him for it.

  • Pincher used his Parliamentary position to intimidate others into tolerating his sexual abuse. Of course that committee should be able to sanction him for it.

    Someone using their position to intimidate a subordinate in an office environment I could accept, I've seen it happen - but in a club? Were these 2 blokes junior members of his staff to begin with? If my boss tried sexually assaulting me in a club punches would be thrown.

    [Excuse my ignorance - I'm not at all familiar with this story]

  • Employers can act on misbehaviour outside the workplace if it brings the organisation into disrepute. The tribunals will uphold dismissal in these instances where it is reasonable for them to do so.

    In this case, the Standards Committee was within its rights to suspend him. He admitted what he had done, by the way.

  • Employers can act on misbehaviour outside the workplace if it brings the organisation into disrepute. The tribunals will uphold dismissal in these instances where it is reasonable for them to do so.

    In this case, the Standards Committee was within its rights to suspend him. He admitted what he had done, by the way.

    My understanding on this is that he apologised to those allegedly involved but stated he had no recollection of the incident that does not constitute an admission of guilt.

    My point is not about his guilt or innocence, it's about their right to put him on trial for a criminal offence, because quite simply if the police having investigated ( not asked to do so) and found no evidence or a trial found him not guilty then this committee has no case. Therefore in this instance they are acting on an allegation and if you read what they have said, they find that he did what was alleged, how or why else has he got one of the steepest sanctions other than Boris's 90 days ever given out.

    In that respect OB I think a tribunal will, deem they acted unlawfully as they are NOT a criminal court of law, this was purely another political response following what was perceived as a Boris wrong.

    You are right that employers can act outside of the workplace,but in this distinction an extension of the workplace is never mentioned and what allegedly occurred happened within the confines of a private members club.

    Did your parents have any children that lived.

  • Where does the self appointed morality police draw the line when it comes to how they define "standards"?

    If Harriet had her way men wouldn't be allowed to be within 10 yards of any unchaperoned woman and all beachwear would be Victorian. :)

  • As if that was true ^

    I wouldn't call myself morality police but surely everyone would call this unacceptable:

    'the MP had groped a then-employee of the House of Lords on his arm and neck, before groping his bottom.

    He also found that he groped a civil servant on his bottom and then groped his testicles.'

  • Vinnie Jones didn’t even get a yellow card when he did it.

    Maybe context is everything in this case?

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • As if that was true ^

    I wouldn't call myself morality police but surely everyone would call this unacceptable:

    'the MP had groped a then-employee of the House of Lords on his arm and neck, before groping his bottom.

    He also found that he groped a civil servant on his bottom and then groped his testicles.

    ST

    the point again is missed, what you describe is unacceptable in this day and age whether your gay or not, but that is NOT the issue.

    This was a criminal indecent assault for which if a complaint has been made it was made to the HoC.

    The HoC should recognise they have neither the capabilitynor the power to investigate a criminal matter and instructed the alleged victim to report this to the relevant authority, in this instance the police. Following any police investigation and or subsequent court hearing imho then and only then upon declaration of guilt by conviction can the standards Committee determine that as he was guilty he brought the HoC into disrepute.

    What has occurred is that assuming I am your supervisor, I charge you, question you, determine your guilt then I also pass sentence, fairness is totally absent from this proceedings. I am marking my own homework worse than ever before.

    Did Angela Raynor upon calling tory MPs scum not fall below the standards expected of a member of the HoC, did she not also bring her position as deputy leader of H.M Opposition into disrepute?

    Imho yet again the encroach outside their remit and pass judgement based on the alleged offence not the evidence, Prosecution Council, jury, judge and executioner.

    Did your parents have any children that lived.

  • AS that also happened to Dwight York and I expect several others.

    Gazza seems to like it 🤣🤣🤣

    Did your parents have any children that lived.

  • Well one point is he was as a senior government member using his parliamentary power to assist him in his despicable hobby. And another is he harmed the reputation of the house. So if they want to suspend him they can.

  • If neither of the men have apparently gone to the police what with sexual assault being a criminal matter, how did the standards coven...sorry, committee get wind of the alleged groping?

    It all starts to sound a bit politically motivated depending on who reported what to whom.

    Do we even know what the definition of "groped" is in this instance being as there doesn't seem to be any distinction between someone cupping your nuts or putting an arm on your shoulder these days?

    What actual evidence is there? If people can be found guilty by what is basically an upmarket court of public opinion simply on "hearsay" we're on a very slippery slope.

    There is no evidence as neither of the men have made it known to the Police , but the Parliamentary Committee were told by whom no idea.

    But Steve has provided more information

  • My understanding on this is that he apologised to those allegedly involved but stated he had no recollection of the incident that does not constitute an admission of guilt.

    My point is not about his guilt or innocence, it's about their right to put him on trial for a criminal offence, because quite simply if the police having investigated ( not asked to do so) and found no evidence or a trial found him not guilty then this committee has no case. Therefore in this instance they are acting on an allegation and if you read what they have said, they find that he did what was alleged, how or why else has he got one of the steepest sanctions other than Boris's 90 days ever given out.

    In that respect OB I think a tribunal will, deem they acted unlawfully as they are NOT a criminal court of law, this was purely another political response following what was perceived as a Boris wrong.

    You are right that employers can act outside of the workplace,but in this distinction an extension of the workplace is never mentioned and what allegedly occurred happened within the confines of a private members club.

    The criminal procedure and the employee’s disciplinary procedures are two different things, Canny Lad. The employer would be investigating misconduct whereas the police would be looking at whether the law appeared to have been broken, not to mention whether there was enough evidence. It is perfectly possible for a person not to be facing criminal charges in a case like this, but for the employer to take the view that the misconduct was a breach of the disciplinary code.

    As I said before, he admitted it. In fact, isn’t this the guy that came forward and told Boris Johnson while he was PM what he had done? In the event, it was the final straw that saw Boris having to resign.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!