The United Kingdom and the Death of Boris Johnson as we know it.

[badgerx16]

It is important to remember that this report is not about alleged breaking of COVID lockdown rules, but about repeated instances of contempt of Parliament, which the HoC sees as one of the most egregious crimes that can be committed.

[Warriorsaint]

Lol, what a twat he was. Ah well good riddance to bad rubbish!

[whelk]

Well put

 

[revolution saint]

I can't believe we've had a report and all this fuss over some cake.  Madness.

[Fan The Flames]

The report attempts to rebalance the the power in the HoC, the populists lead by Johnson believed that they had the right to ignore conventions and proceedures if it benefitted them. Rees-Mogg tried to push the notion that the only judge of the executive and members is the electorate.

But there are a processes within the system that when added together provide the scrutiny and check on power that we need.

This rebalance of power shouldn't just stop at Johnson's lies but should look to pull all the tory transgressors back in line, Badenock, Braverman, Rees-Mogg...

Anyone else calling the committee a kangaroo court should be charged with contempt, like Brendan Clarke-Smith. Our HoC needs to reassert itself.

[sadoldgit]

2 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

I can't believe we've had a report and all this fuss over some cake.  Madness.

This is tongue in cheek right? 
 

If not, you need to understand that this had nothing to do with “cake” and everything to do with lying to and misleading Parliament.

[revolution saint]

10 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

This is tongue in cheek right? 
 

If not, you need to understand that this had nothing to do with “cake” and everything to do with lying to and misleading Parliament.

Completely agree mate, apparently Boris didn't even eat the cake!  It's mental.  People talk about lying but they're all the same.  Boris got the wrong type of Brexit done and that's good enough for me AND he didn't lie about it!

[Warriorsaint]

27 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

Completely agree mate, apparently Boris didn't even eat the cake!  It's mental.  People talk about lying but they're all the same.  Boris got the wrong type of Brexit done and that's good enough for me AND he didn't lie about it!

Brexitard cultists everywhere. Stockholm syndrome writ large.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

It is important to remember that this report is not about alleged breaking of COVID lockdown rules, but about repeated instances of contempt of Parliament, which the HoC sees as one of the most egregious crimes that can be committed.

It’s always been a ridiculous bit of pony anyway, long before Boris was involved. They can lie to the electorate, the media, put things in the manifesto they’ve no intention of honouring, hand out favours on a nod & a wink. But lie to other liars, fuck me they all get on their moral high horse then. 
 

We need proper recall, so the people can decide whether they want somebody to continue to represent them. If people think the subtle change in the “misleading Parliament “ proof will end with Boris, they’re sadly mistaken. Give politicians the tools to destroy an opponent, and they’ll happily take it( and I don’t just mean in the opposite side). It’ll become another tool the whips will use to keep MP’s  in line & it’ll start creeping into policy areas. They’re all pretty much clones as it is, this will make it even worse 
 

 

[Warriorsaint]

39 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s always been a ridiculous bit of pony anyway, long before Boris was involved. They can lie to the electorate, the media, put things in the manifesto they’ve no intention of honouring, hand out favours on a nod & a wink. But lie to other liars, fuck me they all get on their moral high horse then. 
 

We need proper recall, so the people can decide whether they want somebody to continue to represent them. If people think the subtle change in the “misleading Parliament “ proof will end with Boris, they’re sadly mistaken. Give politicians the tools to destroy an opponent, and they’ll happily take it( and I don’t just mean in the opposite side). It’ll become another tool the whips will use to keep MP’s  in line & it’ll start creeping into policy areas. They’re all pretty much clones as it is, this will make it even worse 
 

 

This guy can bleat all day about ponies but he wants Farage in lol 😂 

 

[whelk]

Telling that hear many people talk about Johnson not having any close friends like normal people. All that charisma yet a very fucked personalty . Can blame the parents and public school education but a very strange individual 

Edited 15 June, 2023 by whelk

[Fan The Flames]

[Fan The Flames]

54 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s always been a ridiculous bit of pony anyway, long before Boris was involved. They can lie to the electorate, the media, put things in the manifesto they’ve no intention of honouring, hand out favours on a nod & a wink. But lie to other liars, fuck me they all get on their moral high horse then. 
 

We need proper recall, so the people can decide whether they want somebody to continue to represent them. If people think the subtle change in the “misleading Parliament “ proof will end with Boris, they’re sadly mistaken. Give politicians the tools to destroy an opponent, and they’ll happily take it( and I don’t just mean in the opposite side). It’ll become another tool the whips will use to keep MP’s  in line & it’ll start creeping into policy areas. They’re all pretty much clones as it is, this will make it even worse 

The Rees-Mogg school of bollocks, a MPs standards isn't just to be policed or judged by their constituents alone. There needs to be scrutiny by the HoC or by an independent body, nothing less.

[aintforever]

The fat sack of shit really is acting like a mini Trump now. Hilariously making out he has been undemocratically kicked-out of Parliament. Completely ignoring the facts, and as usual, lying to appeal to his thick-as-fuck fanbase.

The Privileges Committee are elected MPs who were appointed by Parliament. Their recommendations are put to the house who then have to vote on whether there should be a by-election. And it’s the electorate who make the decision on whether he should be kicked out or not. 

It couldn’t be more democratic, the only irritating thing is that it has taken this long to work out what was screamingly obvious to everyone from day one.

[badgerx16]

16 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

That tie knot is far from being tight enough.

[badgerx16]

6 minutes ago, aintforever said:

 

The Privileges Committee are elected MPs who were appointed by Parliament.

With a majority from his own party.

[sadoldgit]

Rees-Mogg making a total fool of himself again today complaining that Harriet Hartman should not have chaired the committee (she only got to vote if there was a deadlock) because she had previously criticised Johnson over Partygate. He suggested that they should have replaced her with a Labour MP who has never criticised Johnson!!! 😂😂😂

Nadine Dorries is also making an even bigger fool of herself on Twitter with her comments about the committee and cronyism (pot, kettle, black springs to mind Nad). I would post them but know Batman will be along soon to do so. 🤔

In case he doesn’t, here is the text of one of them

“We also need to keep a close eye on the careers of the Conservative MPs who sat on that committee. 
Do they suddenly find themselves on chicken runs into safe seats? Gongs? 
Were promises made?
 We need to know if they were.
Justice has to be seen to be done at all levels of this process.”

Duckie, you do know that there is a proper recall system in place. If the Commons vote to endorse the committee’s findings then Johnson could face a by-election and his constituency get to decide his fate. The bottler decided to jump before he was pushed though. The bottler that you voted for.

 

Edited 15 June, 2023 by sadoldgit
Added text

[Weston Super Saint]

29 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

The Rees-Mogg school of bollocks, a MPs standards isn't just to be policed or judged by their constituents alone. There needs to be scrutiny by the HoC or by an independent body, nothing less.

But where does it stop and how is it funded?

For example, in our local elections we received two leaflets on the same day, both from the same party (no idea which one, they're all pretty much vanilla!). One had the party pledge explaining what they would definitely be doing if we voted them in, yes sir, you can trust us! Which was to assess the local roads in the ward and cost out how much it will be to fix the pot holes.

The second leaflet stated in big letters that they already surveyed the roads, costed it at £300k to fix and would be doing everything they can to get the funds raised.

Essentially they pledged to do something they'd already done.  Presumably because two different people wrote the leaflets and they hold the public in such contempt that they couldn't even be arsed to proof read them! .

The whole system seems to be broken with those in it only interested in reaching the central gravy train.

[revolution saint]

Does anyone know if MPs will actually vote now that Boris has resigned?  I'd be interested to see how much support he has left in the Tory party.

[badgerx16]

33 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

The whole system seems to be broken with those in it only interested in reaching the central gravy train.

Go to Oxbridge, study PPE, out of Uni get a job in an MP's office. First 3 steps on the road......

 

What is amusing is newly elected local councillors that think they have any power whatsoever.

[badgerx16]

8 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

Does anyone know if MPs will actually vote now that Boris has resigned?  I'd be interested to see how much support he has left in the Tory party.

Monday, debate the report followed by a free vote. The process has to run it's course because the report is a matter of Parliamentary record and precedent is set if it is accepted, by which future actions can be measured.

[badgerx16]

55 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Rees-Mogg making a total fool of himself again today complaining that Harriet Hartman should not have chaired the committee (she only got to vote if there was a deadlock) because she had previously criticised Johnson over Partygate. He suggested that they should have replaced her with a Labour MP who has never criticised Johnson!!! 😂😂😂🤔

 

Johnson was the Prime Minister who ordered the Committee to be set up and accepted Harriet Harman to be appointed as Chair.

Edited 15 June, 2023 by badgerx16

[revolution saint]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Monday, debate the report followed by a free vote. The process has to run it's course because the report is a matter of Parliamentary record and precedent is set if it is accepted, by which future actions can be measured.

Cheers.  Suspect that might be more embarrassing for Boris than the report itself. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Rees-Mogg making a total fool of himself again today complaining that Harriet Hartman should not have chaired the committee (she only got to vote if there was a deadlock) because she had previously criticised Johnson over Partygate. He suggested that they should have replaced her with a Labour MP who has never criticised Johnson!!!

 

What on earth is wrong with that. If a judge had criticised illegal immigrants crossing the channel, saying they were spongers and criminals, you’d be the first moaning if he was chair of a committee reporting on the treatment of migrants. I’m sure you wouldn’t want a Jew who called Corbyn anti-Semitic deciding if he allowed antisemitism to flourish in the Labour Party. 

Chris Bryant stood down as chair because he criticised Boris over partygate. Is there degrees of saying he’s guilty that is acceptable. You can say he’s guilty, and be “independent” but if you say he’s “very guilty” you can’t. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

5 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

 

Duckie, you do know that there is a proper recall system in place. If the Commons vote to endorse the committee’s findings then Johnson could face a by-election and his constituency get to decide his fate.

 

That’s not a proper recall system, it’s not what was in the Tory or Lib Dem manifesto, but it got watered down when they released they could lose control of the system, in other words, some of their MP’s could be sacked for various “ lies” . For example, campaigning on abolishing tuition fees and then increasing them when in power. Politicians who voted for an amendment ensuring  proper recall included George Galloway, Caroline Lucas & John McDonnell. Interestingly, somebody who also called for proper recall, and against a committee of MP’s deciding was Bernard Jenkin, but as we’ve seen the past couple of days he doesn’t appear to have much consistency when it comes to sitting in judgement of others. 

Edited 15 June, 2023 by Lord Duckhunter

[Sheaf Saint]

40 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What on earth is wrong with that. If a judge had criticised illegal immigrants crossing the channel, saying they were spongers and criminals, you’d be the first moaning if he was chair of a committee reporting on the treatment of migrants. I’m sure you wouldn’t want a Jew who called Corbyn anti-Semitic deciding if he allowed antisemitism to flourish in the Labour Party. 

Chris Bryant stood down as chair because he criticised Boris over partygate. Is there degrees of saying he’s guilty that is acceptable. You can say he’s guilty, and be “independent” but if you say he’s “very guilty” you can’t. 

I think it's probably more just the somewhat ludicrous idea that there is a single MP on the opposition benches that hasn't criticised Johnson at some point. 

Because, let's face it, they wouldn't be doing their jobs as 'the opposition' if they didn't criticise such a hopelessly inept and unsuitable PM, given the ammunition he provided them on pretty much a daily basis while in office.

[badgerx16]

10 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I think it's probably more just the somewhat ludicrous idea that there is a single MP on the opposition benches that hasn't criticised Johnson at some point. 

 

Exactly. The Committee was established at the request of the HoC, ( majority Conservative ), and was constituted with a majority of Conservative members. The Chair in these situations is always chosen from the official Opposition, and the members when sworn in commit to leaving party political bias at the door. How on Earth it can be determined to have been a "kangaroo court" is a mystery, and Rees-Mogg, who knows perfectly well how these things work, is just playing for the Tory media and feeding people's ignorance with bullshit.

Edited 15 June, 2023 by badgerx16

[Sheaf Saint]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Exactly. The Committee was established at the request of the HoC, ( majority Conservative ), and was constituted with a majority of Conservative members. The Chair in these situations is always chosen from the official Opposition, and the members when sworn in commit to leaving party political bias at the door. How on Earth it can be determined to have been a "kangaroo court" is a mystery.

It's just Johnson reading from the Trump playbook.

He knows full well it isn't really a kangaroo court, he just wants to play the victim to make his hard of thinking supporters believe he's been stitched up.

[whelk]

[badgerx16]

42 minutes ago, whelk said:

Is the title spelt correctly ?

[Fan The Flames]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What on earth is wrong with that. If a judge had criticised illegal immigrants crossing the channel, saying they were spongers and criminals, you’d be the first moaning if he was chair of a committee reporting on the treatment of migrants. I’m sure you wouldn’t want a Jew who called Corbyn anti-Semitic deciding if he allowed antisemitism to flourish in the Labour Party. 

Chris Bryant stood down as chair because he criticised Boris over partygate. Is there degrees of saying he’s guilty that is acceptable. You can say he’s guilty, and be “independent” but if you say he’s “very guilty” you can’t. 

This is Nadine Dorries level desperate. Fuck me Boris, fuckkkk meeeeeeee.

[Tamesaint]

11 hours ago, revolution saint said:

Completely agree mate, apparently Boris didn't even eat the cake!  

Bollocks.

That fat cunt goes running every day. He should be a lean , mean  machine. To get that fat he must have been eating a lot of cake.

[Turkish]

16 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Rees-Mogg making a total fool of himself again today complaining that Harriet Hartman should not have chaired the committee (she only got to vote if there was a deadlock) because she had previously criticised Johnson over Partygate. He suggested that they should have replaced her with a Labour MP who has never criticised Johnson!!! 😂😂😂

Nadine Dorries is also making an even bigger fool of herself on Twitter with her comments about the committee and cronyism (pot, kettle, black springs to mind Nad). I would post them but know Batman will be along soon to do so. 🤔

In case he doesn’t, here is the text of one of them

“We also need to keep a close eye on the careers of the Conservative MPs who sat on that committee. 
Do they suddenly find themselves on chicken runs into safe seats? Gongs? 
Were promises made?
 We need to know if they were.
Justice has to be seen to be done at all levels of this process.”

Duckie, you do know that there is a proper recall system in place. If the Commons vote to endorse the committee’s findings then Johnson could face a by-election and his constituency get to decide his fate. The bottler decided to jump before he was pushed though. The bottler that you voted for.

 

I remember when you criticised the report that found the UK wasn’t institutionally racist claiming the people on the committee were biased with the report rigged to give the outcome they wanted. So on the basis of what you’ve just posted you were making a fool of yourself then, right? 

[Lord Duckhunter]

11 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Exactly. The Committee was established at the request of the HoC, ( majority Conservative ), and was constituted with a majority of Conservative members. The Chair in these situations is always chosen from the official Opposition, and the members when sworn in commit to leaving party political bias at the door. 

So why did Chris Bryant step down then? 

[moonraker]

13 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

So why did Chris Bryant step down then? 

Not difficult to find that answer for one seemingly so well versed in politics and parliamentary procedures.  Simple answer is because he did the decent thing in an attempt, sadly failed, to avoid the ridiculous, despicable and dishonourable accusations that are being maliciously spouted by Johnson apologists and right wing rags.  Our democracy has been abused and threatened for long enough, it is time to banish this Eton mess and their sycophantic hangers on  from all aspects of public life.  Sir Bernard Jenkins did the same thing over the Patterson report.  Why do you always play the man not the ball?

Edited 16 June, 2023 by moonraker

[Fan The Flames]

58 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

So why did Chris Bryant step down then? 

This is just a straw man argument and you know it, the answer is simple, Chris Byrant was vociferous in his views on Johnson, Harriet Harman wasn't. 

There were more tories on the committee and HH only had a casting vote.

He lied and there is no way a greasing the pig on this one. 

[Sheaf Saint]

Deputy editor of the Torygraph on 5live just now, claiming that the current episode could be damaging for the Tories in next year's GE and might...

"make it hard for them to get the majority they need. It could cost them ten or even twenty seats"

Edited 16 June, 2023 by Sheaf Saint

[tdmickey3]

The fat serial liar is going to write a column in the Mail......... 

The readers will lap it up

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Deputy editor of the Torygraph on 5live just now, claiming that the current episode could be damaging for the Tories in next year's GE and might...

"make it hard for them to get the majority they need. It could cost them ten or even twenty seats"

Unsurprisingly the right wing press shamelessly support Johnson on their front pages today. I guess they imagine they are still giving the Gammons what they want to hear but it is worrying that they still insist on defending the indefensible.

Looking forward now to see how many gutless, spineless, brainless Johnson supporters vote against the report on Monday. It’s amazing how many gullible people there are in this country and how easily they are gaslit by people like Johnson.

I was married to a narcissist for 7 years. I once asked her why she never apologised. Her response was that she does apologise…but she never does anything wrong. Does this sound like anyone we know? These people do not posses a moral compass yet still there are people prepared to make excuses for them.

I loved the part of the report when, after excusing the leaving parties as being necessary for morale blah blah blah, he was asked if he would have said they were okay for the rest of the country as part of the lock down rules too, he found that he had been hoisted by his own testicles.

Strange how Johnson said that the committee, which he selected himself, were of the greatest integrity, until they found him guilty 😂.

Last night in QT there were are couple of Tories on the panel, one squirming and trying to cover his arse without saying anything against Johnson’s conduct. The other, his previous Press Officer, was still peddling the bollocks about “cake” and completely ignoring the question of lying despite being picked up on it several times by Fiona Bruce.

If Johnson had an ounce of self awareness and shame he would crawl off and hide under a rock. Instead he continues to do a Trump, blame everyone else and plays the victim. Those who continue to enable his behaviour need to be held to account too. We need to flush these turds away and have a complete reset.
 

 

[badgerx16]

53 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

The fat serial liar is going to write a column in the Mail......... 

The readers will lap it up

If it runs to form the column will include fabricated quotes and parts will have to be re-written by somebodty else to make them coherent.

[Lord Duckhunter]

5 hours ago, moonraker said:

Not difficult to find that answer for one seemingly so well versed in politics and parliamentary procedures.  Simple answer is because he did the decent thing 

Perhaps Harmen should have done the same. 

[badgerx16]

22 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Perhaps Harmen should have done the same. 

Why ? If you follow your logic then the Committee could not have been constituted as none of the non-Tory MPs could have been appointed, nor for that matter many of the Conservatives.

You do understand the concept of leaving political bias at the Committee Room door and judging solely on the evidence ? Surely an experienced KC can be trusted to do this ?

Edited 16 June, 2023 by badgerx16

[moonraker]

29 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Perhaps Harmen should have done the same. 

Why

[Warriorsaint]

18 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What on earth is wrong with that. If a judge had criticised illegal immigrants crossing the channel, saying they were spongers and criminals, you’d be the first moaning if he was chair of a committee reporting on the treatment of migrants. I’m sure you wouldn’t want a Jew who called Corbyn anti-Semitic deciding if he allowed antisemitism to flourish in the Labour Party. 

Chris Bryant stood down as chair because he criticised Boris over partygate. Is there degrees of saying he’s guilty that is acceptable. You can say he’s guilty, and be “independent” but if you say he’s “very guilty” you can’t. 

The whattabouteey is stunning if not entirely predictable from this clown.

Loves JRM this one, working class Tories love doffing the cap to these Wankers knowing the disdain JRM has for working people.

Can you imagine slackjaw ponysmunter’s dream dinner table. 
Farage, JRM, Mosely, Enoch Powell, Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson all the while he shifts about saluting and serving nibbles.

[revolution saint]

Seems like Boris doesn't want his allies voting against the report findings on Monday: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65930011

Theory behind this is that it would expose the lack of support he actually has which would heap more embarrassment on him.

[Lord Duckhunter]

34 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Why ? If you follow your logic then the Committee could not have been constituted as none of the non-Tory MPs could have been appointed, nor for that matter many of the Conservatives.

 

Exactly. 
 

It’s funny isn’t it, there’s  universal calls for inquiries to be independent, that HoC shouldn’t “mark their own homework”, yet when it comes to the fundamental question of representing constituents in parliament, MP’s can suspend other MP’s and deny their voters that representation. They work for the people who elected them & therefore the people alone should decide. Not politicians, many of whom can’t act without bias or party loyalty. 
 
You lot are acting like this is some sort of established parliamentary procedure written in tablets of stone. It’s not, it was a grubby compromise made during the coalition days to stop Lib Dems facing recall after signing pledges to abolition tuition fees.

If I stood for parliament signing a pledge to vote to rejoin the EU in any subsequent vote, and then didn’t. Who should decide if I needed suspending a bunch of MP’s, or my employers? 
 

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Perhaps Harmen should have done the same. 

You would have a hard time finding a Labour member of the committee who hadn’t at some point criticised the Greased Piglet. What you deliberately keep ignoring us that Johnson put this committee together and praised their integrity before they found him guilty. He wasn’t found guilty because of Harriet Harman being on the committee. He was found guilty because he was guilty. You can’t accept the obvious because you will have to accept that you are complicate because you voted for this idiot. Just like you voted for Brexit. Just like you voted for UKIP. See a pattern here? Everything you endorse is a pile of sh*t and is all about self interest and peddled by the equivalent of snake oil salesmen.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

You would have a hard time finding a Labour member of the committee who hadn’t at some point criticised the Greased Piglet. What you deliberately keep ignoring us that Johnson put this committee together and praised their integrity before they found him guilty. He wasn’t found guilty because of Harriet Harman being on the committee. He was found guilty because he was guilty. You can’t accept the obvious because you will have to accept that you are complicate because you voted for this idiot. Just like you voted for Brexit. Just like you voted for UKIP. See a pattern here? Everything you endorse is a pile of sh*t and is all about self interest and peddled by the equivalent of snake oil salesmen.

What you’re incapable of grasping is it’s the process that’s wrong, not the personalities. If Nadine, JRM, Connor Burns & Dominic Raab were on it, you’d be the first moaning about it. You wouldn’t be banging on about their integrity or independence would you? 
 

 

[Fan The Flames]

3 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Exactly. 
 

It’s funny isn’t it, there’s  universal calls for inquiries to be independent, that HoC shouldn’t “mark their own homework”, yet when it comes to the fundamental question of representing constituents in parliament, MP’s can suspend other MP’s and deny their voters that representation. They work for the people who elected them & therefore the people alone should decide. Not politicians, many of whom can’t act without bias or party loyalty. 
 
You lot are acting like this is some sort of established parliamentary procedure written in tablets of stone. It’s not, it was a grubby compromise made during the coalition days to stop Lib Dems facing recall after signing pledges to abolition tuition fees.

If I stood for parliament signing a pledge to vote to rejoin the EU in any subsequent vote, and then didn’t. Who should decide if I needed suspending a bunch of MP’s, or my employers? 

You are just mixing bollocks up, because you haven't got any where else to go. This isn't about MPs parliamentary performance or whether they haven't represented their constituents properly. This is about standards in parliament, which were serverly eroded by Johnson and his cronies, because that's what populist right wing parties do.

This leave it to the constituents to decided, is 'the people v elites' nonsense, designed to give these wankers the space they need to do whatever they like. There are rules in every aspect of life and the government shouldn't be let off them.

It beggers belief that people, from MPs to pub bores, ignore all the evidence and denigrate our democracy, just because Johnson is their man. 

[Fan The Flames]

6 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What you’re incapable of grasping is it’s the process that’s wrong, not the personalities. If Nadine, JRM, Connor Burns & Dominic Raab were on it, you’d be the first moaning about it. You wouldn’t be banging on about their integrity or independence would you? 

Not if they came to the right result.