Thursday 16 December 2010

Kevin Barron or, They Just Don't Get It Chapter 25

An apologist for toe-rags, Kevin Barron is the Chairman of the Commons Standards and Priviliges Committee. It was that august body who reviewed the C4 Despatches programme broadcast before the General Election. The ex-Ministers caught on camera were promising access to various departments and Ministers in return for sums of cash. He delivered the committees verdict on Richard Caborn, Stephen 'Cab for Hire' Byers and the egregious Hoon. His opening remarks are more than informative - they reveal the depth of the chasm  separating them in their Westminster Bubble from we poor proles on the outside. Thanks to 'They Work For You' and Hansard for the quotes.

"Before I turn to the three former Members who are the subject of the motion, I wish to make a few remarks about the behaviour of the people who duped them. They would no doubt argue that they have served the public interest, but they were also taking advantage of the need of retiring MPs in the run-up to a general election to provide for their future employment. They dangled the bait in front of our former colleagues and unfortunately some of them took it. If that was not entrapment, it was something close to it, and although I do not seek to excuse the conduct of those three former Members, I think the whole House will feel some sympathy for them because of the way they were deceived. My emphases
Aw, bless. Property magnate Hoon was 'entrapped'. What bollocks. Hoon could quite easily have been charged with corruption or something similar. What he did lies on the continuum from 'old Boy Network' to outright bribery and corruption.

"The Committee also found that Geoff Hoon committed a particularly serious breach of the code which, like that of Mr Byers, brought the House and its Members generally into disrepute. As those who have read the Committee's report and the evidence will know, Mr Hoon has not accepted this conclusion.
He argued that the code of conduct should not apply because he was discussing his private life and what he might do after he had left the House. The Committee did not accept that argument. Mr Hoon was a Member of Parliament when he attended the bogus interview, and he talked in the interview about information that he had been given while he was he was a Member of Parliament, so the code applied.
Secondly, Mr Hoon suggested that the meaning of what he had said to the bogus interviewer had been misinterpreted. It seemed to come down to whether he had said "this" or "it", or perhaps neither. Some of us refreshed our memory of what he said by watching a recording of the "Dispatches" programme, and he clearly said "this". Ultimately, however, it is not so much about the exact words that he used as about the impression that he was giving. The Committee concluded that Mr Hoon was giving the clear impression that he could brief paying clients about defence policy on the basis of his inside knowledge. That is, as we said in our report, a particularly serious breach of the code, because it brings the House and its Members into disrepute. Unlike Mr Byers, Mr Hoon has neither accepted that he breached the code nor apologised. The Committee has therefore recommended that Mr Hoon's entitlement to a parliamentary pass should be suspended for five years. Hopefully, the apology will ensue."
Wow! Five years without a pass. Heavy! 
Does the punishment fit the crime? Consider what was said about Caborn.
"We could, as I said earlier, have recommended that Mr Caborn be summoned to the Bar of the House for a formal reprimand. That would have been humiliating for him, and I am not sure that it would have been all that great for the House. The media would have loved it, and the pictures no doubt would have been broadcast around the world, but it would have been a bit like a public flogging, and we did not think that right or appropriate, so we did not go there." 
They really know how to wound these people do! But wait, there is more….
"All that Mr Caborn will lose is his ability to enter the building without going through the visitors' entrance and his access to certain facilities, such as the Strangers Bar. He can still come here as a member of the public. "
Wow and indeed thrice wow. 
If you should ever be so unfortunate as to end up in front of a jury, do your utmost to get these soft sods  onto the panel. Oh, hang about, they only behave like this with what they call their own. 
They would throw the book at you or I.
What a disconnected bunch of stupid, self-serving bubble-dwellers.

No comments:

Post a Comment