Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

The shame of select committees

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:57 am

dls wrote:
What matters is that one who dishonours the honours system is promptly and effectively dealt with. Why, do you suggest the process is not to be trusted?


Atti is not suggesting that the process be distrusted - only that you appear to start with the process assuming its conclusions as a premise.


Appearances can be deceptive. If there is no dishonour to deal with then it doesn't matter.
But if we don't distrust the process, then why do we need to analyse what it involves?
What Atticus said clearly implies the obverse of that.

dls wrote:My original point is that the Select Committee system is not fit for any purpose beyond the self-aggrandisement of its members.

Yes, sorry, we have rather wandered off from that point. If you'd like me to split the thread, I will do it later.

But I don't believe that the system is not fit for purpose if the right committee is selected. Though presumably the selection process is part of the system so overall you would be right.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby atticus » Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:39 am

I have no idea what I am supposed to have said to imply any such thing. I certainly did not say any of the words quoted in the last post.

You on the other hand, have asked all kinds of questions about why the process has not reached the conclusion you desire, and have said that you do not give a toss what the process actually is.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:46 am

atticus wrote:I have no idea what I am supposed to have said to imply any such thing.

No, you wouldn't: your thinking is far to clouded by your prejudice.
I certainly did not say any of the words quoted in the last post.

Nobody suggested that you did. Are you getting paranoid as well now? I've edited the post to make it clear.
You on the other hand, have asked all kinds of questions about why the process has not reached the conclusion you desire, and have said that you do not give a toss what the process actually is.

I have said no such thing. I have only asked what is the delay, when the delay is quite clearly not to allow the action of due process, and that I have no need to analyse the detail of that process because I have faith that it does what it needs to.

It scarce matters now anyway, since Cameron seems set to devalue the system so as to make it almost completely meaningless.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby Millbrook2 » Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:46 am

Given neither of the 2 events which trigger a referral have occurred then the process requires 'compelling evidence'. I'm not sure it the Committee have reached the stage where this has been found.

In any event, and from a practical point of view, if you are wanting a voluntary contribution of millions into a pension fund it would not make tactical sense to start the removal process.
Millbrook2
 
Posts: 758
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:05 am

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:57 pm

Millbrook2 wrote:Given neither of the 2 events which trigger a referral have occurred then the process requires 'compelling evidence'.

I take it that you are using the definitive repository for the sum of human knowledge as your source of information on this?
The thing is, the events listed by said repository in a manner to appear definitive are specified by the government as examples.
I'm not sure it the Committee have reached the stage where this has been found.

Are we possibly getting confused about our committees? I think I am: it should not require a Select Committee to refer a case to the The Honours Forfeiture Committee, and surely it should be the Honours Forfeiture Committee that decides whether the evidence is compelling?
In any event, and from a practical point of view, if you are wanting a voluntary contribution of millions into a pension fund it would not make tactical sense to start the removal process.

Well that does bring us to the question of how it is that pillaging millions from a pension fund isn't criminal, but leaving that aside for the moment, I take your point, but I would expect the Honours Forfeiture Committee to take into account whether he pays back the money, and initiating the process would show that the threat is serious.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:00 pm

Whoa! It has not been alleged by anyone that Sir Philip has pillaged anything from the pension fund, nor that he should repay anything. No, it is stated that the fund is not able to meet its liabilities, and that had he been a more responsible proprietor of BHS the firm and therefore the fund would have been able to trade out of its difficulties.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6280
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:22 pm

Who mentioned Sir Philip? We have a no names policy here.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Thu Aug 04, 2016 4:50 am

He was named in the second post of this topic.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6280
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:57 am

Smouldering Stoat wrote:He was named in the second post of this topic.

Terribly sorry, my mistake.
Smouldering Stoat wrote:Whoa! It has not been alleged by anyone that Sir Philip has pillaged anything from the pension fund...

Who then is it that is alleged (by the papers if nobody else) to have paid himself a huge dividend shortly before selling the company to somebody stupid enough to not notice that it had been crippled?
One might argue that that is not pillaging the pension fund, but it would be a semantic argument: a large sum has been dishonestly taken from the funds that ensure the viability of the companies pensions.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby Millbrook2 » Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:29 am

Many pension funds have a deficit without being pillaged nor do we know the state of the fund before the person in question got involved.

There is a difference between fund shortfalls and ' a large sum dishonestly taken from the funds' even though the financial end result may be the same.

Allegations by papers are a doubtful source to rely on as a first instance of truth.
Millbrook2
 
Posts: 758
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:05 am

Previous

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest