*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Wasn't the original point that Bojo saying the parliamentary court was a KC somehow a criminal offense?

The hashing out of what exactly he meant by KC seems relevant, and simply assuming that Bojo of all people uses any given word in the common parlance seems dubious.

Maybe he did, though. If so, and he was basically saying parliament was cracked, then ... what?
Worst case scenario... is that actually illegal? Can he be held in contempt of parliament for opinions stated to the press?
IDK the law.


And what is the not worst case scenario?
Does the law require motive? Proving motive is notoriously hard. He can say he was being dramatic or comedic, or playing up to the cameras... he can deflect his actual motivation into obscurity, which we all know Bojo is practiced at.

Is the ambiguity of the meaning of words, specifically KC, in this case relevant?

If not... does that actually prove his point?
I.e. if his statement is asserted to mean what Parliament chooses to be offended at and punishes him despite his adamant assertion that his motive was not offensive... isn't that kinda KC-ish?

[Poopadoop]

Wasn't the original point that Bojo saying the parliamentary court was a KC somehow a criminal offense?

Not a criminal offense, a contempt of parliament. He couldn't go to jail for it. Afaik the PC's power is limited to suspending MPs from sitting in parliament as an MP for a term anywhere from 1 day to life, and some other relatively minor punishments like taking away their pass so they can't use the tea room for cheap meals or some shit.

The hashing out of what exactly he meant by KC seems relevant, and simply assuming that Bojo of all people uses any given word in the common parlance seems dubious.

Since most people understand the term to mean illegitimate and biased, and the context of his quotes were along the same lines, I think we can fairly interpret them as such.

No-one apart from Ong has asserted Bodger meant something other than the usual common definition of the term KC, including Bodger himself.

Maybe he did, though. If so, and he was basically saying parliament was cracked, then ... what?
Worst case scenario... is that actually illegal? Can he be held in contempt of parliament for opinions stated to the press?
IDK the law.

He's holding the PC in contempt, and by proxy the entire parliament because they commissioned the PC. So yes, he can be held in contempt for saying the PC is/was prejudicial against him and didn't give him fair treatment. It's implying that the parliament is also biased because it appointed this biased committee and let it go ahead.

And what is the not worst case scenario?
Does the law require motive? Proving motive is notoriously hard. He can say he was being dramatic or comedic, or playing up to the cameras... he can deflect his actual motivation into obscurity, which we all know Bojo is practiced at.

Motive is an investigative tool that points detectives towards certain suspects and away from others, it's not a legal requirement for a guilty verdict.

You can be found guilty of murder without anyone having to provide an explanaton for why you did it. Proving your actions is what counts.

Is the ambiguity of the meaning of words, specifically KC, in this case relevant?

He did not try to use ambiguity as a defense. Obviously his lawyer who earns millions a year or whatever didn't consult with Ong for legal guidance. His bad.

I.e. if his statement is asserted to mean what Parliament chooses to be offended at and punishes him despite his adamant assertion that his motive was not offensive... isn't that kinda KC-ish?

He asserted it both before and after the hearing. He can hardly argue 'this kangaroo court unfairly punished me for calling it a kangaroo court.' I mean I wouldn't put it past him to try, but I doubt it would hold up.

[Poopadoop]

Motive is an investigative tool that points detectives towards certain suspects and away from others, it's not a legal requirement for a guilty verdict.

You can be found guilty of murder without anyone having to provide an explanaton for why you did it. Proving your actions is what counts.

To elaborate, a defendant's motive is often used by prosecutor's as a rhetorical device when the evidence is not compelling. So, e.g., you kill your spouse and it's a bit sketchy whether you did it or not. The prosecutor would likely argue to a jury that you had motive because you'd just taken out a $1m life insurance policy on them the day before.

OTOH, if you kill your spouse in front of a roomful of witnesses, your DNA is all over the murder weapon, etc., etc., the motive isn't really relevant to the case. Even if the prosecutor said they have no idea why you did it, you'd still be found guilty.

[Poopadoop]

He can hardly argue 'this kangaroo court unfairly punished me for calling it a kangaroo court.' I mean I wouldn't put it past him to try, but I doubt it would hold up.

Actually, if it were a kangaroo court, I guess he could say that. The problem for him is that no-one apart from him and a few of his lickspittles actually seem to think that it was a KC. It's just hard to imagine a parliamentary committee being set up, and its members agreed on by everyone in parliament, for the express purpose of railroading an MP.

It's certainly an unorthodox defense though lol. Can you imagine getting tried for something, publicly calling it a kangaroo court before it even started, then saying it was unfair to hold you in contempt for that? At the very least it doesn't seem like a wise strategy.