Tory MPs feel ‘very sorry’ for ‘victim’ Chris Pincher, Michael Fabricant says
Conservative MPs feel "very sorry" for Tory MP Chris Pincher and believe he is a "victim in his own way", one of his colleague has said.
Mr Pincher quit as a government whip this week and lost the Conservative whip after he allegedly groped two men in a private members' club.
The allegation is the latest agains the MP, an earlier on of which led to an investigation by Whitehall authorities in 2019.
Speaking on BBC Radio 5Live Michael Fabricant, who represents the constituency of Lichfield next to Mr Pincher's in Tamworth, said:
"On the one hand, of course, we're all very sorry for people who've been affected by Chris's action's but we also quite frankly feel very sorry for Chris in many ways.
"This is being driven most of the time, it seems by drink, and I know now that he's actually sought and is already in contact with the clinical psychiatrists regarding regarding treatment."
When it was suggested to Mr Fabricant that drinking alcohol was not an excuse to the Conservative MP's behaviour, he replied:
"Of course not, but it's an explanation. And, you know, that's why many of us do feel that Chris, sadly, you know, is also in his own way, a victim."
After claiming Mr Pincher was a victim, Mr Fabricant repeatedly questioned whether it was appropriate to use the word "victim" regarding people who had made complaints against Mr Pincher.
He said that the word "victim" to him "always seems very extreme word to use" in cases such as Mr Pincher's, and later said he was "using [the word] 'victims' in inverted commas" with regards to the MP's accusers.
He cast doubt on the accusations levelled against the Tamworth MP and claimed some accusers had retracted their statements, though he did not give examples.
Mr Fabricant also put Mr Pincher's actions down to "the nature of the long hours" of being an MP, which he said made it hard to have a family life.
"I'm saying that nothing is black and white in this world if only it was that simple. It isn't that simple," he said.
"It does make me wonder precisely, you know, who is the guilty party who is the innocent party and whether it is wholly that Chris Pincher is someone you know, who is in that position."
Former Top Civil Servant Claims Boris Johnson Was Briefed On Pincher Allegations Simon McDonald disputes Downing Street’s account about what the prime minister knew about allegations surrounding Pincher.
“They need to come clean. I think that the language is ambiguous, the sort of telling the truth and crossing your fingers at the same time and hoping that people are not too forensic in their subsequent questioning and I think that is not working.”
- Lord McDonald on BBC Radio 4's Today programme
Simon McDonald @SimonMcDonaldUK · Follow This morning I have written to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards - because No 10 keep changing their story and are still not telling the truth.
Boris Johnson deliberately misled parliament on partygate, MPs find
Boris Johnson deliberately misled parliament over the Downing Street parties scandal, a committee of MPs will find on Wednesday after rejecting his central defence.
The former prime minister claimed that he was advised by senior officials that both Covid rules and guidance had been complied with at all times in No 10 during the pandemic.
However, the privileges committee, a parliamentary standards body that has investigated Johnson, has concluded that officials did not advise him that social-distancing guidelines had been followed, despite him repeatedly making the claim in the Commons. One of his most senior officials in fact warned him against making such a claim on the basis it was “unrealistic”.
The committee of seven MPs, which includes four Tories, also found that Johnson was misleading during a public hearing with the committee at which he claimed that leaving drinks he attended without social distancing were in line with Covid guidance.
Johnson formally quit as the Tory MP for Uxbridge & South Ruislip on Monday, before the report’s publication. He has accused the committee of mounting a “witch-hunt” and behaving like a “kangaroo court”.
The committee’s report will state that Johnson would have been sanctioned with a suspension of more than ten days, enough to trigger a by-election. It is also expected to state that criticism of the committee should be considered contempt of parliament after Johnson and his allies repeatedly castigated members over the investigation. They were offered increased security after being inundated with messages from Johnson’s supporters.
The former prime minister has already rejected the findings of the committee, which were sent to him last week. In his 1,000-word resignation statement on Friday he accused the committee of “egregious bias” and said it was carrying out a “political hit-job”.
He also escalated his war of words with Rishi Sunak over his resignation honours list, accusing the prime minister of “talking rubbish”. Sunak suggested that Johnson had asked him to bend the rules by overruling the House of Lords Appointments Commission (Holac) and giving four Tory MPs peerages. “Boris Johnson asked me to do something that I wasn’t prepared to do, because I didn’t think it was right,” Sunak said.
Johnson responded: “Rishi Sunak is talking rubbish. To honour these peerages it was not necessary to overrule Holac but simply to ask them to renew their vetting, which was a mere formality.”
The Times has been told that Johnson also pressed Sunak to give his father a knighthood after he was cut from the resignation honours list. No 10 was said to be concerned that allowing Johnson to elevate his father would carry significant reputational risk.
A spokesman for Johnson declined to comment. A No 10 source insisted that Downing Street had not intervened to remove Stanley Johnson from the honours list.
Aides warned against Johnson’s claim Johnson’s defence against the claims that he misled parliament when he said that Covid guidance and rules had been followed “at all times” centred on his assertion that he had been given “repeated assurances” they had.
However, Jack Doyle, his former director of communications, appeared to contradict the claim in written evidence to the committee. He said: “Don’t think I advised the PM to say that — I mean that the socially distancing guidelines — to say they were followed completely, they are difficult things to say.”
Martin Reynolds, Johnson’s principal private secretary at the time, advised him in December 2021 that he should remove a claim from a statement to the Commons that “all guidance had been followed at all times”. He questioned “whether it was realistic to argue that all guidance had been followed at all times”. Johnson removed the line from his opening statement but repeated the assertion during a debate in the Commons less than half an hour later. The Times has been told that the committee views this as evidence that Johnson deliberately misled the Commons.
• William Hague: The Johnson ‘witch-hunt’ is nothing of the sort
The former prime minister’s comments at his March hearing with the committee have also been deemed misleading. Johnson said his attendance at several No 10 leaving drinks, where staff consumed alcohol without social distancing, was a “necessary” part of his working life as prime minister.
He said he did not believe for “one second” that rules had been breached because the guidance only required workplaces to distance as far as possible. This claim has been rejected by the committee, which has highlighted guidance stating that where social distancing could not be followed businesses “should consider whether that activity needs to continue for the business to operate”. The committee has concluded that leaving drinks were not essential to the operation of Downing Street.
Boris had 14 days to respond. He did so on the 14th day. No idea what he has said. Or why he chose to use the full 14 days. But that is his right. Fail to see why the papers should be briefed about it being 11:57 pm. That is his right. And was no doubt done on legal advice. If you were given 14 days to respond to something, how would you feel about someone complaining that you utilised all the time available?
If the papers want a story, try this. The Committee were going to publish their findings on Monday. Before even contemplating any Defence from Boris. They now claim the delay to Thursday is caused by "issues with printing the report". No, it is not. The delay is caused by having to consider the Defence before issuing the verdict. I know that. The Committee know that. So why lie?
Because they are not a "kangaroo court." Actually, they are not a Court at all. But anyone seeking to rush to a verdict before completing due process, and then lying about the obvious reason for delay and denigrating someone abiding by their Rules, is not doing itself any favours.
Boris had 14 days to respond. He did so on the 14th day. No idea what he has said. Or why he chose to use the full 14 days. But that is his right. Fail to see why the papers should be briefed about it being 11:57 pm. That is his right. And was no doubt done on legal advice. If you were given 14 days to respond to something, how would you feel about someone complaining that you utilised all the time available?
If the papers want a story, try this. The Committee were going to publish their findings on Monday. Before even contemplating any Defence from Boris. They now claim the delay to Thursday is caused by "issues with printing the report". No, it is not. The delay is caused by having to consider the Defence before issuing the verdict. I know that. The Committee know that. So why lie?
Because they are not a "kangaroo court." Actually, they are not a Court at all. But anyone seeking to rush to a verdict before completing due process, and then lying about the obvious reason for delay and denigrating someone abiding by their Rules, is not doing itself any favours.
I am surprised that he wishes to communicate with them at all, after his outburst the other day. I assume that most people assume that his resignation was triggered by seeing the report. So its probably not looking good.
They wrecked peoples lives, the economy and sent people to their deaths in care homes all whilst they were carrying on as though nothing was happening. People need to go to jail.
Comments
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/chris-pincher-a-timeline-of-allegations-and-investigations/ar-AAZbZW8?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=1d641f73397c4c1baffc5c882ba95934
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/downing-street-lying-about-chris-pincher-sex-pest-complaint-top-civil-servant-says/ar-AAZcQ8z?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=1d641f73397c4c1baffc5c882ba95934
Tory MPs feel ‘very sorry’ for ‘victim’ Chris Pincher, Michael Fabricant says
Conservative MPs feel "very sorry" for Tory MP Chris Pincher and believe he is a "victim in his own way", one of his colleague has said.
Mr Pincher quit as a government whip this week and lost the Conservative whip after he allegedly groped two men in a private members' club.
The allegation is the latest agains the MP, an earlier on of which led to an investigation by Whitehall authorities in 2019.
Speaking on BBC Radio 5Live Michael Fabricant, who represents the constituency of Lichfield next to Mr Pincher's in Tamworth, said:
"On the one hand, of course, we're all very sorry for people who've been affected by Chris's action's but we also quite frankly feel very sorry for Chris in many ways.
"This is being driven most of the time, it seems by drink, and I know now that he's actually sought and is already in contact with the clinical psychiatrists regarding regarding treatment."
When it was suggested to Mr Fabricant that drinking alcohol was not an excuse to the Conservative MP's behaviour, he replied:
"Of course not, but it's an explanation. And, you know, that's why many of us do feel that Chris, sadly, you know, is also in his own way, a victim."
After claiming Mr Pincher was a victim, Mr Fabricant repeatedly questioned whether it was appropriate to use the word "victim" regarding people who had made complaints against Mr Pincher.
He said that the word "victim" to him "always seems very extreme word to use" in cases such as Mr Pincher's, and later said he was "using [the word] 'victims' in inverted commas" with regards to the MP's accusers.
He cast doubt on the accusations levelled against the Tamworth MP and claimed some accusers had retracted their statements, though he did not give examples.
Mr Fabricant also put Mr Pincher's actions down to "the nature of the long hours" of being an MP, which he said made it hard to have a family life.
"I'm saying that nothing is black and white in this world if only it was that simple. It isn't that simple," he said.
"It does make me wonder precisely, you know, who is the guilty party who is the innocent party and whether it is wholly that Chris Pincher is someone you know, who is in that position."
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/tory-mps-feel-very-sorry-091539420.html
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pm-suspended-mp-facing-groping-084358774.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/furious-tory-mps-tell-ministers-133028949.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/analysis-why-simon-mcdonalds-letter-090358964.html
Simon McDonald disputes Downing Street’s account about what the prime minister knew about allegations surrounding Pincher.
“They need to come clean. I think that the language is ambiguous, the sort of telling the truth and crossing your fingers at the same time and hoping that people are not too forensic in their subsequent questioning and I think that is not working.”
- Lord McDonald on BBC Radio 4's Today programme
Simon McDonald
@SimonMcDonaldUK
·
Follow
This morning I have written to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards - because No 10 keep changing their story and are still not telling the truth.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/former-top-civil-servant-claims-boris-johnson-was-briefed-on-pincher-allegations_uk_62c3d9d7e4b0ffe00a15d147#:~:text=In a bombshell letter, Lord Simon McDonald disputed,no official complaints against Pincher were ever made.
Boris Johnson deliberately misled parliament over the Downing Street parties scandal, a committee of MPs will find on Wednesday after rejecting his central defence.
The former prime minister claimed that he was advised by senior officials that both Covid rules and guidance had been complied with at all times in No 10 during the pandemic.
However, the privileges committee, a parliamentary standards body that has investigated Johnson, has concluded that officials did not advise him that social-distancing guidelines had been followed, despite him repeatedly making the claim in the Commons. One of his most senior officials in fact warned him against making such a claim on the basis it was “unrealistic”.
The committee of seven MPs, which includes four Tories, also found that Johnson was misleading during a public hearing with the committee at which he claimed that leaving drinks he attended without social distancing were in line with Covid guidance.
Johnson formally quit as the Tory MP for Uxbridge & South Ruislip on Monday, before the report’s publication. He has accused the committee of mounting a “witch-hunt” and behaving like a “kangaroo court”.
The committee’s report will state that Johnson would have been sanctioned with a suspension of more than ten days, enough to trigger a by-election. It is also expected to state that criticism of the committee should be considered contempt of parliament after Johnson and his allies repeatedly castigated members over the investigation. They were offered increased security after being inundated with messages from Johnson’s supporters.
The former prime minister has already rejected the findings of the committee, which were sent to him last week. In his 1,000-word resignation statement on Friday he accused the committee of “egregious bias” and said it was carrying out a “political hit-job”.
He also escalated his war of words with Rishi Sunak over his resignation honours list, accusing the prime minister of “talking rubbish”. Sunak suggested that Johnson had asked him to bend the rules by overruling the House of Lords Appointments Commission (Holac) and giving four Tory MPs peerages. “Boris Johnson asked me to do something that I wasn’t prepared to do, because I didn’t think it was right,” Sunak said.
Johnson responded: “Rishi Sunak is talking rubbish. To honour these peerages it was not necessary to overrule Holac but simply to ask them to renew their vetting, which was a mere formality.”
The Times has been told that Johnson also pressed Sunak to give his father a knighthood after he was cut from the resignation honours list. No 10 was said to be concerned that allowing Johnson to elevate his father would carry significant reputational risk.
A spokesman for Johnson declined to comment. A No 10 source insisted that Downing Street had not intervened to remove Stanley Johnson from the honours list.
Aides warned against Johnson’s claim
Johnson’s defence against the claims that he misled parliament when he said that Covid guidance and rules had been followed “at all times” centred on his assertion that he had been given “repeated assurances” they had.
However, Jack Doyle, his former director of communications, appeared to contradict the claim in written evidence to the committee. He said: “Don’t think I advised the PM to say that — I mean that the socially distancing guidelines — to say they were followed completely, they are difficult things to say.”
Martin Reynolds, Johnson’s principal private secretary at the time, advised him in December 2021 that he should remove a claim from a statement to the Commons that “all guidance had been followed at all times”. He questioned “whether it was realistic to argue that all guidance had been followed at all times”. Johnson removed the line from his opening statement but repeated the assertion during a debate in the Commons less than half an hour later. The Times has been told that the committee views this as evidence that Johnson deliberately misled the Commons.
• William Hague: The Johnson ‘witch-hunt’ is nothing of the sort
The former prime minister’s comments at his March hearing with the committee have also been deemed misleading. Johnson said his attendance at several No 10 leaving drinks, where staff consumed alcohol without social distancing, was a “necessary” part of his working life as prime minister.
He said he did not believe for “one second” that rules had been breached because the guidance only required workplaces to distance as far as possible. This claim has been rejected by the committee, which has highlighted guidance stating that where social distancing could not be followed businesses “should consider whether that activity needs to continue for the business to operate”. The committee has concluded that leaving drinks were not essential to the operation of Downing Street.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-partygate-privileges-committee-findings-087pch8z3
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-has-made-a-new-late-night-bid-to-try-and-defend-himself-from-privileges-committee/ar-AA1cuWFU?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=26a2c388e74c4b4a80bcb6a1d6600a4a&ei=41
Boris had 14 days to respond. He did so on the 14th day. No idea what he has said. Or why he chose to use the full 14 days. But that is his right. Fail to see why the papers should be briefed about it being 11:57 pm. That is his right. And was no doubt done on legal advice. If you were given 14 days to respond to something, how would you feel about someone complaining that you utilised all the time available?
If the papers want a story, try this. The Committee were going to publish their findings on Monday. Before even contemplating any Defence from Boris. They now claim the delay to Thursday is caused by "issues with printing the report". No, it is not. The delay is caused by having to consider the Defence before issuing the verdict. I know that. The Committee know that. So why lie?
Because they are not a "kangaroo court." Actually, they are not a Court at all. But anyone seeking to rush to a verdict before completing due process, and then lying about the obvious reason for delay and denigrating someone abiding by their Rules, is not doing itself any favours.
I assume that most people assume that his resignation was triggered by seeing the report.
So its probably not looking good.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-demands-tory-quits-152307600.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65865946
How could he include the person responsible for that hair in an Honours List.
His lying has finally caught up to him.
At last.
People need to go to jail.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65913299
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/sound-crackers-boris-johnson-ally-201554569.html