Connect with us

Politics

DOMINIC LAWSON: Beaten Boris Johnson must savor the humility of these desperate Brexit wreckers

Published

on

 


As the Prime Minister contemplates his loss, the result of a party in Downing Street as the rest of the nation locked down under their own anti-socialist edicts, it could give Boris Johnson grim satisfaction to see that two of his more persistent opponents are also facing public humiliation.

I’m talking about Gina Miller and John Bercow.

Ms Miller is the multi-millionaire financier who used the courts to challenge the Prime Minister’s bid to speed up Brexit by proroguing Parliament in autumn 2019.

Last week Gina Miller, pictured, declared the creation of a new political party (her own) called True and Fair

Although the High Court ruled he had the right to do so, Miller’s lawyers, who made no secret of the fact that she wanted the 2016 referendum result overturned, persuaded the Supreme Court, led by Baroness Hale, to declare Johnson’s maneuver. illegal.

Prank call

As we now know, Johnson was finally able to engineer the general election result required to “get Brexit done” and honor his predecessor David Cameron’s pledge that politicians would accept the people’s verdict in the referendum.

One would have thought that this would be the last we would hear from Gina Miller, at least on the subject of democracy. But no.

Last week she declared the creation of a new political party (her own) called True and Fair. To say its launch at a Westminster conference center was a prank would be understating the embarrassment.

It was attended by only 13 people, which appears to have been made up of five journalists and Miller’s staff.

As one such reporter, Will Lloyd of the UnHerd website, wrote: “Dutifully, I started eating one of the 50 croissants offered to reporters. Somebody had to do it.

Ms Miller, described by Lloyd as ‘a remnant of Brexit, surrounded by unconsumed croissants’, then stood up to say her new party would bring ‘long overdue changes to British politics’.

From the accounts of the few journalists who showed up, the kick-off speech was devoid of any politics that could change anything, and the rhetoric was as empty and tired as any of the established parties inflicted on us. .

Thus, Mrs. Miller intoned that we must have “a government that works for everyone”. Yawn.

After the debacle, True and Fair released a statement saying “hundreds of people were bitterly disappointed that they couldn’t attend in person.” I bet they weren’t.

And who should appear next? None other than his comrade in the fight against “Brexit Boris” during the last legislature, the irascible former president John Bercow.

Yesterday, he gave a long interview to the Sunday Times to challenge, in a preventive way, the conclusions of an investigation carried out by Kathryn Stone, the parliamentary commissioner for standards.

John Bercow, pictured, in an interview complained that

John Bercow, pictured, in an interview complained that ‘this process was made up as we went along’

Although she has yet to issue her decision on the multiple cases of staff intimidation Bercow has been accused of, it appears she has upheld no less than 21 charges out of a total of 35 complaints by the former Clerk of the Commons and two former Private Secretaries.

Bercow complains bitterly, saying “this process was made up as we went along.”

Funny enough, because Bercow himself became famous for the way he made the rules as he went, almost invariably in favor of those trying to ‘stop Brexit’.

Bercow gave a lengthy interview to The Sunday Times yesterday preemptively challenging the findings of an investigation by Kathryn Stone (pictured)

Bercow gave a lengthy interview to The Sunday Times yesterday preemptively challenging the findings of an investigation by Kathryn Stone (pictured)

Sacred

As even one who disagreed with the people’s verdict in 2016, Anne Perkins of the Guardian, wrote at the time, Bercow had “ignored the considered advice of the official guardians of the rules of parliamentary procedure”, the President takes a serious risk when he seems to ignore the rules”.

All the more so when, also disregarding the almost sacred duty of this role to appear impartial, he was content to be driven in a family car festooned with a “B******* to Brexit” sticker. “.

Either way, it’s not that, but the multiple accusations of intimidation that thwart his deepest desire to remain a parliamentarian through the peerage that would normally accrue to a retired president.

So instead, among less illustrious sinecures, Bercow charged 82.50 a pop for thousands of so-called “celebrity videos”, in which he recorded, on demand, personal messages to people on their birthdays. or some other occasion. I imagine his ‘Order, order’ shout is the most requested.

Whatever post-civil service humiliation awaits Boris Johnson, it certainly cannot be as grim as this.

A charter for pious vandals

“God made me do it” is generally not a credible defense in a criminal trial. But it did the trick for Father Martin Newell, last week acquitted by a jury at London Crown Court of ‘obstructing an engine’.

After two of his (also acquitted) colleagues from Christian Climate Action used a ladder to climb onto the roof of a rush-hour DLR train about to leave Shadwell station in October 2019, Newell bonded on the side.

Commuters inside reacted angrily, as expected. One told the supposedly divinely inspired protesters: “It’s a fucking electric train.”

Father Martin Newell pictured with Reverend Sue Parfitt outside Inner London Crown Court.  They, along with another colleague, were acquitted last week by a jury for

Father Martin Newell pictured with Reverend Sue Parfitt outside Inner London Crown Court. They, along with another colleague, were acquitted by a jury last week for ‘obstruction of an engine’

But Newell informed them and the court: “Jesus taught us to love your neighbour, and Pope Francis said the Earth is our neighbor.”

Remarkably, the jury bought this line. Or maybe not so remarkably, as it follows a pattern of similar acquittals, even when the judge had told the jurors there was no defense at law.

That’s what happened last April, when six Extinction Rebellion protesters were cleared of causing criminal damage after smashing windows at Shell’s London headquarters.

Their argument, which the jury effectively approved, was that Shell, being an oil company, was helping to “cause serious injury and death”.

I’m surprised they didn’t claim the building workers were complicit in murder, and that their smashed windows were merciful “climate justice.”

More recently, there was the acquittal by a jury of a group that helped toss the statue of Edward Colston (1636-1721), a philanthropic slave trader, into Bristol harbour.

The jury system is an ancient essential defense of our freedoms, but sometimes jurors can be accused of taking a liberty with their decisions to the detriment of law-abiding citizens (such as DLR commuters).

I doubt Father Martin Newell will ever repent of his actions. But it can happen.

In 2000, author Mark Lynas (pictured) was one of 28 Greenpeace members sensationally acquitted by a jury after being charged with criminal damage

In 2000, author Mark Lynas (pictured) was one of 28 Greenpeace members sensationally acquitted by a jury after being charged with criminal damage

In 2000, author Mark Lynas was one of 28 Greenpeace members sensationally acquitted by a jury after being charged with criminal damage.

Led by Lord Melchett, then executive director of Greenpeace, they destroyed a crop of genetically modified (GM) maize in Norfolk.

But 13 years later, Lynas told the Oxford Farming Conference (at which the virulently anti-GMO Prince Charles was also speaking): “I apologize to you for spending several years destroying crops GM.

“I’m also sorry for helping to demonize an important technology option that can be used to benefit the environment.”

I wonder what the jurors in this case thought, if they read his confession.

Sources

1/ https://Google.com/

2/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10409291/DOMINIC-LAWSON-Battered-Boris-Johnson-relish-humbling-desperate-Brexit-wreckers.html

The mention sources can contact us to remove/changing this article

What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos

ExBUlletin

to request, modification Contact us at Here or [email protected]